Lords Chamber

Wednesday 14th October 2026

(began 22 hours, 16 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:07
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Abolition of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-

Before answering the noble Lords question, I'd like to refer members to my ministerial declarations of interests. My husband works for the
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Additional housing powers devolved to local authorities Lord Evans of Guisborough (Conservative)
-

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Oral Question. Lord Evans of Guisborough. >> My Lords, I beg leave to ask the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
None Portrait Oral questions: Deal between the United States of America and Russia on diesel exports Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Labour)
-

Both Oral Question Lord McConnell of. Lords, I beg leave to McConnell of. Lords, I beg leave to ask the question of standing in my name on the Order Paper. >> My Lords. >> The quickest.
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:51
None Portrait Business of the House
-

Bill, I beg to move that this bill be now read a first time. >> The question is that this bill be. Now read a first time, as many be. Now read a first time, as many are as that opinion will say, content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. My Lords, we The contents have it. My Lords, we now come to some instruments previously debated in Grand Committee Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices during the recognition and de-recognition process and one other motion Lord Leong.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, with leave of the House. I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. En bloc says that the two motions in the name of Lord Leong be agreed to En bloc as many are as that opinion will say, content, on the contrary, not content. The the contrary, not content. The contents have it. We now come to electrical safety standards in the private rented sector and social rented sector brackets. England brackets, Amendment Regulations 2026 and two other motions. Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wilson of Sedgefield. My Lords, I beg to move that the motion stand in my name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion stand in my name on the Order Paper. Beg to move, that they are moved. En bloc is that the three motions in the name of Lord Wilson of Sedgefield be agreed to? En bloc as many as are of that opinion will as many as are of that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. We now come to questions on an answer now come to questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons yesterday on the
15:52
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: The early release scheme
-

early Release scheme, and we start with the frontbenchers.
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:55
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:04
Lord Caine Portrait Lord Caine (Conservative)
-
-
at Drumcree in Portadown over recent days and the decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to prohibit an Orange Order parade from Drumcree Church along the road. At the outset, I would like to concur with what the government's statement says about not returning to the stand offs that took place in the mid 90s from the mid 1990s that resulted in widespread and large scale disorder, awful violence and most sadly of all, the loss of 21 lives.

It was a particularly painful chapter in Northern Ireland's troubled history, one which left terrible scars on society in which I believe fostered the heightened community tensions that led to the death of Robert Hamill that we discussed on Monday. Any question of going back to those times is simply unimaginable. My Lords, I was special adviser to the then Secretary of State, the late Lord Mayhew of Twysden for some of that period. I was also at the Northern Ireland Office when disputes around the return parade through Ardoyne in north Belfast also led to serious disorder from 2012 until a resolution was found in 2016.

So, my Lords, I speak with some small degree of experience on the issues with which the current Secretary of State, the noble Baroness, the Minister, along with other colleagues and officials, have grappled in recent days and the predicaments that they have faced. Ministers often face a choice between the least worst options or, as I believe Alec Douglas-Home once put it, between the unpalatable and the utterly catastrophic, the police are also placed in an impossible position. We completely accept, therefore, the sincerity with which the.

Of the Secretary of State when he says that the decision on Friday to ban the parade was not one that was taken lightly. I do believe, however, that the decision taken raises serious issues. The parade was permitted with severe restrictions. 35 people to walk the ten minute route, with no bands or supporters by the Parades Commission, which is the lawfully constituted body under the Public Processions Northern Ireland Act 1998, as their determinations carry the full weight of law. The parade was legal and the lawfulness of the Parades Commission determination was upheld by the Court of Appeal, chaired by the Lady Chief Justice, on Monday.

The parade was prevented, however, from taking place by an unlawful protest, as a result of which a number of people, including senior politicians, are being investigated over possible breaches of the law. My Lords, it cannot be excusable for any but least of all lawmakers to decide that they will only obey the law when it suits them. Yet does the Minister agree that this is what appears to have happened on this occasion? In his own statement, the Chief Constable said that for the march to proceed would have, quote, required a substantial public that was not asse to be proportionate and which would have carried a risk of serious injury disorder and the wider contagion effects across Northern Ireland, end quote.

Nobody doubts that these are serious matters and require full consideration, and we are clear that nothing can be gained by any actions that will further heighten tensions, just as nothing will be gained by heeding those voices that wish to pull down the institutions in Northern Ireland. But it is not the consequence of banning the march that those who have broken the law, and those whose actions have threatened a serious injury disorder and wider contagion have in fact triumphed.

I totally accept that this is not remotely the intention of Ministers and the government. But will not the perception in Northern Ireland be that those who bring sufficient numbers onto the streets and threaten violence and disorder will prevail? My Lords, throughout the duration of the standoff at Ardoyne, I attended countless meetings with nationalist politicians and residents adamant that Parades Commission determinations must always be upheld. At the same time, unionist politicians and the Orange Order exhorted us to use the same process and section nine powers employed by the Secretary of State on Friday to enable their parade at the time to take place in 2013.

We did give this serious consideration, but drew back due to the implications for the authority of the Parades Commission, confidence in policing and, above all, upholding the rule of law. Again, I know that this is not the intention, but I am deeply concerned that the Secretary of State might have crossed the line from which it will in future be very difficult ever to retreat. Finally, the pledge of office in schedule four of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 contains a commitment for Ministers, including the First Minister, to support the rule of law unequivocally in word and deed, and to support all efforts to uphold it, end quote.

Does she believe, does the noble Baroness Sater Minister believe that there should be consequences for any Minister of whatever political party who fails to abide by that pledge? And in this respect, are there any plans to look at the powers of the Secretary of State under section 38 of the Northern Ireland Act, 1998? In his statement, the Chief Constable said that among the considerations in recommending the Secretary of State ban the parade were, quote, the implications for the Northern Ireland Executive and for the peace process.

Can the noble Baroness tell the House what the Chief Constable actually meant by that? As I have said, I fully accept that there are no easy answers, but I do fear on this occasion that the government may have taken the wrong choice.
16:10
Baroness Suttie Portrait Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I too am grateful to >> My Lords, I too am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the statement that was made on Monday this week by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My Lords, these past few weeks have served as a stark reminder of just how fragile the peace process is, and of how we must never take it for granted. These events also remind us of the power and importance of words. Words as well as deeds can inflame, cause heart, and ultimately can turn people towards violence.

A violence that has mercifully been so much less a part of people's lives in Northern Ireland since 1998. The Belfast Good Friday Agreement left many of those issues concerning reconciliation and dealing with the past unresolved, and that is perhaps one of the lessons learned from these recent events. Events which have been further inflamed by social media and the highly personalised, unacceptable and often offensive language used. We need to find ways to bring about genuine reconciliation and move on from the past.

From these benches benches, we welcome all efforts at de-escalation and dialogue. I therefore commend the intervention of the Secretary of State, an intervention that followed clear advice from the PSNI. That advice was clear not to intervene, risks a further increase in violence and a wider deterioration of the peace process. I would also like to pay a personal tribute to the Minister, who I know has dedicated so much time over the past few weeks in trying to find compromises and solutions to these very difficult and highly sensitive issues.

As a Scot from a small town where traditions are fiercely upheld, I do understand the importance placed on such traditions. But they should never, I believe, be at the expense of the security and safety of others. It is important that the rule of law is respected and upheld. We must put the community and their future first. People living side by side in getting on with their lives do not benefit from replaying the worst chapters of the past. A three week stand off costing £5 million in policing alone is money and resource that could have gone elsewhere.

Those choices will inevitably have consequences for real people. Our job now is to support those who want to move forward, to protect the institutions, respect the rule of law and ensure this dispute does not taint the hard won progress of the past 30 years. Can the Minister say what practical support is being provided to the communities in Portadown, who have now lived through three weeks of disruption and tension, and how is she going about supporting that? The policing Bill is now approaching? As I said, £5 million.

Can the Minister confirm whether additional resource will be made available to the PSNI, and whether that cost will fall on the Northern Ireland Block grant? And finally, will the Minister commit to encouraging engagement with young people, a generation who have mostly grown up without this kind of division and violence, and to hear their perspective on how we can move forwards.
16:14
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Labour)
-
-
Yeah, >> Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Caine and the noble Baroness Lord Saatchi for their considered and thoughtful contributions to this deeply sensitive debate. As noble Lords will be aware during the Secretary of State's statement. In the other place, he alerted members that the decision that he laid out in his statement is subject to legal challenge. We must respect the court's role and not anticipate its conclusions. Therefore, noble Lords will understand that this limits what I can say today.

However, firstly, I want to thank many members of your Lordships House as well as members of the other place who, like me, spent a great deal of what was meant to be a quiet recess. Those famous last words, trying to manage a situation that was deeply troubling and for many, heartbreaking. I also want to thank the the Portadown Loyal Orange Lodge number one and the Road Residents Association for the time they genuinely took to to come to Hillsborough and to engage in active negotiations.

Well, we're about to talk about a range of issues, and I will touch on the facts of where we currently stand. The one thing I would like to say to noble Lords is we talk a great deal about how fragile peace is, but what I have also learned is quite how resilient the community is in Northern Ireland are. And the one thing I think we should hold on to is that if this situation had happened 20 years ago, I am not sure that we would see.

We'd have seen the level of peace on the streets or relative calm on the streets that we have seen, in spite of people trying to inflame. And for that, I can't tell you how grateful I am. Let me set out the facts. Portadown Loyal Orange Lodge number one obtained a lawful determination permitting its procession. I want to thank the Lodge for the time that they gave me, as well as the Secretary of State, for their constructive engagement, their commitment to upholding the law and their cooperation with the police has been vital in maintaining calm and order.

The Parades Commission determination, as it was made at the time on the 25th of September, was upheld on the early hours of the 26th of September and then again at the Court of Appeal on Monday, the 12th of October. However, the Secretary of State received a formal application from the Chief Constable on Friday, the 9th of October, under section nine of the Public Processions Northern Ireland Act 1998, advising that facilitating the parade would carry an unacceptable risk of serious injury, widespread disorder, disorder and public safety threats.

No responsible Minister could disregard that clear operational assessment. Upholding the rule of law requires judiciously preventing serious disorder, as the Chief Constable has noted, upholding a determination does not come at any cost. Crucially, nobody is above the law or granted immunity from it. The Police Service of Northern Ireland's operation regarding unlawful protesting is underway and any individual who broke the law will face police investigation. Noble Lords may also be aware that the first person has been has gone to prison with a custodial sentence for six months yesterday.

Noble Lords have also raised concerns about regarding the sort of around the future parading, which is one of my personal concerns. The Secretary of State's exercise of powers under section 11, not section nine of the act, was specific to the circumstances on the ground at Drumcree. The use of section nine powers under the act is also specific to this particular situation, and does not diminish the vital role of the Parades Commission, which remains the lawful body for regulating public processions in Northern Ireland.

As I have stated, the courts have upheld the parade Commission's determination, as did the Secretary of State via his section nine power. However, we do have to address concerns around public confidence in the Parades Commission from both sides of the community, which is why we have asked justice O'Hara to carry out the independent, judge led review into the Commission's processes and procedures, and I am the Minister responsible for that review. The Secretary of State and his ministerial team that would include me, spent two weeks, two weeks, intensively engaging, intensively engaged on this issue, hosting successive rounds of negotiations, affected parties to attempt to secure a compromise.

During these discussions, we explored multiple options for ending the impasse. These included options such as Portadown Lodge completing one final march along the road on the condition that it would not apply to march down the route again. Another option that would have seen Portadown Lodge accept that it had won the right to march, but agree not to exercise that right. Other options included the residents accepting that the lodge had established the legal right and would not challenge other parts of the route.

My Lords, as we have seen in other parts of Northern Ireland where a local agreement can be made, it is actually what sticks and it helps us move on. In this instance, a local agreement could not be reached and there is a clear distinction between failing to secure an agreement on a deeply complex issue and failing to act. We tried, my Lords, on some of the specifics. I'm going to need to reflect on Hansard because obviously there are some things I can and can't say right now from the despatch box, but I think one of the things that I am that I just want to reflect on is one of the comments made by the noble Baroness.

Lord Saatchi, which is I was very aware, and even, I think, noble Lords, members of your Lordships' House are aware of the extraordinary respect I have for the people that delivered the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, many of whom are members of our Lordships House of your Lordships' House. I don't think I ever realised what the pressures were on those very people until I sat in the rooms that they had sat in to try and bring together two sides in a very, very difficult process.

I am so grateful for what they had done. That has got us to this point. The noble Baroness also raised the question of practical support for the community in terms of next steps. Obviously we are now working with key partners and allies, both on the ground and in terms of institutional stakeholders, to see what has to be done. There needs to be some time. There is genuine hurt on both sides about what has happened and obviously still ongoing court cases, but we are aware of the ongoing impact that this is going to have on community tensions and community relationships.

Noble Lady also raised the police bill. I think there are current ongoing discussions, but £5 million is an accurate figure of how much this has cost. And while we're talking about that, I genuinely want to put on record my thanks to the PSNI. We have seen officers not have any leave for weeks that are back to places which also for those that have served historically, and I spoke to many officers who served during the very, very dark days of Drumcree. The memories that this brings back for them as well as for the direct members of the community, are also real.

And I think we need to be aware of that. So I am very, very grateful to the officers of the PSNI who did who who did everything they could to hold the community together. And I, during the process, went to Gold Command to thank them for the work they were doing during the process. I think there are other issues I'll need to reflect upon, but I will write to noble Lords if I've missed anything substantial. My Lords events over recent weeks have passed peacefully and without major disorder, which is in itself represents a significant achievement.

I appeal to all political and community leaders to exercise restraint in their language and assist in lowering tensions. We have seen some extraordinary leadership from our political leaders in recent in Northern Ireland. In recent days and weeks, we have also seen the opposite from some. We must grant the community in Portadown the breathing space needed to rebuild, trust and uphold the spirit of mutual respect. At the heart of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. That has to be our priority and as we head towards 30 years, it's been 29 years next year, but 30 years as we get to such a significant milestone of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, the responsibility on every single one of us to live up to the promises, both of that and of the spirit of the Stormont House agreement.
16:22
16:24
16:25
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Monks my. >> Lords, we have plenty of time to get everyone, everyone who wants to contribute in. As long as questions are brief like the one we just are brief like the one we just heard, I suggest we go to non-affiliated benches and then we. house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, thank you. First of all, with the indulgence of the House, can I Say. As the wife of a police officer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the wife of a police officer who was a Drumcree one, two and three. I want to pay tribute to the three. I want to pay tribute to the men and women who stood on that road, and I say that because they are often stuck in the middle and they often don't have a voice. So I they often don't have a voice. So I want to pay tribute to those men who stood there, because if violence had have happened, they are the people it would have happened to.

So I really do want to pay tribute to the ordinary members of the PSNI. My Lords, in his statement in the other place, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the Orange Order was unable to complete the route due to an unlawful unnotified protest by residents of the road and their supporters who blocked the road. He then said that he made the determination to amend the Parades Commission determination because the Chief Constable had advised him of the risk of serious injury disorder and wider contagion affecting the whole of Northern Ireland.

My question is a simple one. Where was the risk of serious injury and disorder coming from? Because, according to the Secretary of State, it wasn't coming from Portadown Lodge and its supporters. He said yesterday that their commitment to upholding the rule of law and their cooperation with the police had been absolutely vital in maintaining calm. So where was the risk of disorder coming from?
16:27
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Labour)
-
-
I'd like to align myself with the comments of the Secretary of the comments of the Secretary of State that I have met many times now, the the leadership of the Portadown Lodge and they have shown leadership. These are normal men who have been thrust into the limelight in this in this space, and they have shown leadership within their own community, and they have complied with the law at every point in terms of the any intelligence. Obviously, we are currently subject to a judicial review and therefore I can't comment further, but what I would like to.

But I would like to say to the noble Lady is I'm very, very grateful for the leadership. She also shown that during this process and for the support that she has given to others, when the noble Lady raises a very, very important point about the. The PSNI, as I hope I did to. I don't think we can reiterate the what we put people through, even in the last fortnight, both because they have heard from their colleagues over decades about what Drumcree has meant and what the impact was.

During one, two and three on the police officers who served then, but also because we were asking them to stand again between two communities, the communities from which they come from and what that means for them too. So this isn't I was reminded when I was over, that there can always be a perception that people like me can fly in and out, can go into one community and try and help, but I get to go home and that police officers don't necessarily get to do that.
16:28
16:30
16:31
16:32
16:32
16:32
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Labour)
-
-
traditions and their own and their own celebrations. And that includes whether it is our different faith communities or whether it is our different geographic locations. We all have significant traditions all have significant traditions that we respect and mark and what it may be really easy for, for anyone in GB to say, it would be anyone in GB to say, it would be easier if people didn't want a parade, if people didn't want to have, if people didn't want to march. Because this isn't just unique to one side of the community.

The Parades Commission makes determinations for both sides of the community. I think it is incredibly important that we live in a free and fair society that respects freedom of speech and expression, and that's exactly what this is. We just. And that's why the Parade Commission exists and was established in 1998 in order to facilitate the. In that people could have their traditions. I just very briefly want to highlight one of the most extraordinary experiences I had this summer, which was the floor, which was the Irish music festival in Belfast.

It was 1.6 million people came during three days, and at one point I found myself on the slips of the Titanic slip, listening to the Ulster Scots bands play, sitting next to the Taoiseach, a. I was sitting in the middle of Belfast, where 20 years ago. That would have been a security threat in itself, in terms of who was present or 30 years ago, it would have been something you couldn't have considered. But also I was sitting with the head of the Irish government as we celebrated the culture of Ulster Scots.

I think that we need to that has to be the hope that we hold on to into this, that we can all respect each other's traditions.
16:34
16:34
16:35
16:36
16:37
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords, my Lords. >> I think it's. >> Been made clear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That this was a small legal parade. And I think we are, unfortunately, in a position where he who shouts loudest appears to get their way. My concern comes with the comments and the behaviour of the First Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Michelle O'Neill, who is also, of course, vice president of Sinn Fein, because one. Of the key.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the key. Points that has been raised is that there should be no interference from the politicians interference from the politicians at the highest level, and there was no need for any interference no need for any interference because all the processes had been agreed. However, that appeared not to be the case and therefore I do to be the case and therefore I do believe it was a wrong decision by the police in Northern Ireland. And also it didn't help with her interference.

And I'd just like to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to with her colleague the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, remind the First Minister that she did say, when she was asked that she was proud to stand with those in the neighbourhood, but that the orange March on the 27th of September was unwanted, sectarian and triumphalist. And these are her words. So perhaps the noble Minister would pass on the message to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, perhaps, that in future interference on this scale would not be welcome.
16:39
16:40
16:41
16:42
16:43
16:44
None Portrait Legislation: Sovereign Grant Bill – second reading and remaining stages Lord Pitt-Watson, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Labour)
-

Lord Mott afraid time is up, so I apologise. Those noble Lords who didn't manage to get their didn't manage to get their questions in. So we now come to the Sovereign Grant Bill Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pitt-Watson. My Lords, I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the bill be read a second time. This bill relates to the sovereign Grant, which Parliament has provided to support the official duties of the monarch and the work of the Royal monarch and the work of the Royal Household. This bill implements the conclusions of a recent Royal Trustees review of that sovereign grant. It does three things. First, it resets the grant level for the next financial year at £99.9 million, with the anticipation that that will be the grant for the next five years.

Currently, the grant is £137.9 million. This gives effect to the commitment of successive governments and the expectation of the royal household for a reduction in the level of funding following the completion of the Buckingham Palace Reservicing programme. The Bill also aims to make two targeted improvements to the statutory framework for this funding, introducing limited flexibilities to ensure that funding levels remain appropriate both on an annual basis and within the year in response to exceptional circumstances. This will make it easier to respond where funding would become inappropriately low or inappropriately high.

The sovereign Grant supports the monarch's official duties, so it funds the staff, the official travel, the property maintenance, the essential services required for the sovereign to fulfil their unique constitutional role. That role extends beyond ceremonial functions. It includes hosting heads of state, supporting diplomatic engagement, representing the United Kingdom overseas and strengthening our relationships across the Commonwealth and the world. These activities support UK interests, including trade, investment, security and diplomacy at home. The grant supports the sovereign significant role from recognising charitable and voluntary service to bringing communities together across the United Kingdom.

I would also note that with a new and younger monarch, there have been more activities than in the immediate past coming to the bill since 2012, the level of the sovereign grant has been determined through a statutory framework established by Parliament in the 2011 sovereign Grant act. That framework requires the annual grant amount to be calculated by reference to the previous year's expenditure and percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate, which is an independent publication. A corporation whose net revenue profits are returned to the Exchequer to ensure that the funding levels remain appropriate.

The 2011 act also requires the Royal Trustees, that is, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the keeper of the Privy Purse, to conduct regular reviews. A key piece of context for this House today is that Parliament agreed a temporary uplift in the grant from 2017 18 to 20 2627 to fund the Buckingham Palace resurfacing programme. That programme has been a major ten year investment to modernise ageing infrastructure, replace critical electrical and mechanical systems and safeguard the long term future of one of the nation's most important historic buildings.

As that programme nears completion, now is the time for the level of funding to be reassessed. Earlier this year, the then royal trustees completed the latest review and considered both the Royal Households projected expenditure and the Crown Estates projected revenues for the period 27 to 32. The trustees concluded that with the Buckingham Palace resurfacing programme nearing completion, the exceptional funding required that justified the temporary uplift no longer existed. They therefore, recommended that the level of the sovereign Grant should fall from £137.9 million in 2026 27 to £99.9 million in 2728.

That represents a reduction of almost £38 million, or more than a quarter, compared to the current year. At the same time, the trustees recognised that the Royal household continues to face operational pressures. The recommended level of funding will, for example, enable the household to address a maintenance backlog, one that was exacerbated by the pandemic and replaced the ageing digital infrastructure, for example, to strengthen cyber security. The grant level provided for by this bill therefore ensures value for money for taxpayers and that the Royal household can continue to discharge its functions effectively.

In conclusion, then, I think this Bill delivers a fair and proportionate funding settlement. It reduces the level of the sovereign Grant following the completion of the major capital programme. It improves the resilience and sustainability of the statutory framework while maintaining parliamentary oversight, and it ensures that the sovereign Grant can continue to fulfil its core purpose, supporting the official duties of the monarch and maintaining the occupied palaces. On behalf of the nation. My Lords, I beg to move.
16:51
Lord Redwood Portrait Lord Redwood (Conservative)
-
-
That this Bill be now read a second time. second time. >> I support the Minister in. >> His aims. >> And I'm very pleased. >> The Minister set out so well the important work that the Royal Family does on behalf of our country, promoting our diplomatic efforts, entertaining important guests of the nation and supporting the government of the day in the work that the government is doing in trade, diplomacy and wider world affairs. And I accept fully the case that the Minister has made out that this needed review.

I was a supporter of extra money being made available to renovate and modernise Buckingham Palace, its most important national building. And importantly, it's a working building because so many people get the pleasure to go there. And so many of our international guests have the privilege of a of a great dinner or a social event at the palace, which they normally much value, because it's something many other countries in the world cannot match. So I broadly welcome this legislation, and I quite agree that the the amount should be adjusted downwards.

But I also would just like to stress that I think the amount must be sufficient, and the formula and the details for future years must be sufficiently well thought through so that we do accommodate, without argument or unseemly exchanges, legitimate increases in costs which are clearly going to take place as inflation still stalks our land, and as modernisation and the amount of service we expect probably increases. So we should expect the amount of money to go up. I'm quite sure my noble friend on the front bench will have detailed issues which she will rightly raise, but I think it will be in the spirit that we fully support the monarchy in its work.

We believe there should be a proper sovereign grant, but I would just like to leave this last thought with the Minister so that he may be able to clarify a bit more at the end, that I do think it is good to have a formula which you can normally rely on, which gives a fairly predictable outcome to allow the royal household to plan, rather than having year by year to battle away over budgets in the way that others may have to do. Because I think that is a distraction.

And if it gets into the press, it is then damaging to the very diplomatic image we're trying to create.
16:53
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Portrait Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)
-
-
I have a great respect for the Minister. The Minister in particular. As a fellow Scot like me, he will make sure everybody gets value for money, and I understand he will have had a brief from down the corridor. In fact, the words were quite familiar. Having read the Commons Hansard, but I hope that he will listen to the debate here in the House of Lords and transmit the views of the members here, because, unfortunately, this bill wasn't given the full scrutiny that it deserves on the floor of the House of Commons, and I think that was rather regrettable.

So the Lords needs to give it some scrutiny today. And although we're not in a position to move any amendments because the speaker of the House of Commons has designated this understandably as a money bill, we still have a duty to shine a light on the inequality that is built into this mechanism, and the lack of transparency and the lack of accountability. My Lords, the reality is simple if the government genuinely wanted a needs based system, the royal household would submit an annual budget request to the Treasury.

Like any other public entity. Instead, we've now got a formula tied to Crown Estate profits. That's a system designed as a heads I win, tails you lose proposition frozen against losses when profits fall, yet fully open to the upside when they surge. The Lords. When we ask the public to fund an institution to the tune of about £100 million a year through the sovereign grant, at a time where, sadly, we know many of the people in this country face severe pressure on their household budgets.

We here have a duty to ask two fundamental questions. First of all, are we getting value for money? And secondly, do the actions of the institution match the value that it preaches? I would argue that in both cases, the answer is no. We hear various royal pronouncements on climate change, yet official reports reveal hundreds of private jet and helicopter flights for short domestic trips, one recently to the races where the royal concern could have easily gone by car.

And they've taxpayer had funded two new helicopters for the Royal family. Whereas Mountain Rescue for their helicopters have to raise money through charitable efforts. Now is that right? In the 21st century? And then we see commendable statements on homelessness. A Prince of Wales in particular. But the Crown maintains many, many empty or under-utilised luxury estates across the country. In Scotland and Balmoral in London, all over, not just Buckingham Palace, but all over the position the City of London and at Sandringham, many, many unused underutilised estates.

So in terms of value for money, also our monarchy remains by a vast margin. The most expensive state funded royal family in Europe, Spain and Spain. The public grant is only about £7 million in Sweden under £15 million, and the Netherlands at 45 million. So in European terms, we are one of the big spenders as far as royal family is concerned. And if we take a baseline of 2011, £31 million and adjust that for inflation, our sovereign grant, even allowing for this kind of expenditure would be between 45 and 50 million, not the £99.9 million proposed.

And that figure doesn't even account for police security. I've had letters from local councils about the cost that they are required for, for security and the tax advantages of the income from the duchies not taken account of. And I'm not challenging the role of the sovereign, the sovereign in particular. But while European neighbours have streamlined the royal houses, we continue to fund a sprawling network of so-called working royals working royals. This ribbon cutting duties are pulling open a.

A. A table, a tableau that is not real work. Not like a teacher who works five days a week, or a nurse in a geriatric hospital who might be working a 12 hour shift. It's not real work that they do. I mean, I might just say that Princess Anne is a notable exception. And it's interesting that all her offspring have given up their royal titles and worked for a living. Perhaps that's an example that other members of the royal family might think about.

So the fundamental issue here is accountability. When George Osborne introduced the sovereign grant, he claimed removing parliamentary debate would depoliticise the monarchy. In reality, it stripped away democratic oversight and the tightening of freedom of information rules means that transparency also is now virtually impossible, breaking the assurances that were given previously to Parliament, shielding the institution behind FOI exemptions and blocking debate, has enabled a runaway increase in public funding, so I. In order to achieve this, I think that there are three key actions that are necessary, and I really sincerely ask the Minister to take account of the debate here today and to take these down to his fellow Ministers in the Treasury and elsewhere, and consider, first of all, a return to the annual parliamentary scrutiny through regular debates and votes.

Like other public bodies. Secondly, we should treat the royal household also like any other public body under the Freedom of Information Act. And thirdly, we should ask the Commons to task their Public Accounts Committee to conduct a full root and branch review of all royal funding and finances. Parliament is here to safeguard public money and it is time that we modernise, we streamline and properly brought transparency to this institution. I hope the Minister will genuinely, sincerely take account of this debate and with colleagues, look again at this matter.
17:00
Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
I. my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. This bill comes at a time when many households are struggling to make ends meet. Under this bill, the core funding of the Royal Household. That is. After ignoring the money allocated for refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, rises from 51.8 million for 2024 25 to 99.9 million for 2728. That is an increase of 97%. I'm not aware of any ordinary household that has this magnitude in its income to discharge its essential duties.

The average real wage of workers has barely changed since 2008. 25.3 million people live below the minimum income standard, around 300,000 people a year are dying while waiting for NHS hospital appointment. But here we are giving away a large chunk of money. This massive increase is being given to a family which, according to Forbes magazine, could be worth £21 billion. Anyone with lifetime savings of over £16,000 is generally disqualified or severely restricted from receiving Universal Credit, housing benefit or income support.

But under this bill, a mega rich family would continue to receive public money. Many people would not be happy with that arrangement at all, and clearly the government must notice that issue. Profits from the Crown Estate, which is essentially a property business owned by the monarch but run independently, go to the Treasury. Its profits are used as a benchmark to calculate the funding given by the government to the Royal family in the form of sovereign Grant. But then there are questions do the Crown Estate, the Crown Jewels, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster belong to the nation, or are they private property of the Royal family? If they are public property, then all revenues must go to the public purse.

If they are private property, then those assets and related income streams must be taxed in the same way as any other private property is, and the beneficiaries must pay income tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax and inheritance tax. Perhaps the Minister can clarify what makes something a public property or a private property, and why they need to be treated differently. In this case, what we have had for decades is what I call a medieval fudge. We distinguish good societies from the rest by appealing to the rule of law, but the laws don't apply equally to all.

Some get privileged treatment. The king is exempt from inheritance tax. Ordinary mortals are not. The duchies do not pay corporation tax or capital gains tax. The king voluntarily pays income tax on his private income and a portion on the Privy purse not use for official duties. Why should payment of income tax be voluntary for anyone? Don't we have a rule of law? I'm sure many people would like to pay taxes voluntarily, but they will never, ever get that particular chance.

Could the Minister explain why the King's exemption from income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax continue and what revenues could be collected if these exemptions were to be abolished in June 2026, the King published data showing that he paid around £30 million in voluntary income and capital gains tax for the period 2022 23 to 20 2425, which continue. The practice started during his time as the Prince of Wales. The current Prince of Wales also embraces similar disclosures.

These selected snippets should not be confused with transparency. Anyone completing a tax return must disclose employment, income, income from trade or profession, investment income, dividends from home and abroad, capital gains, business profits, inheritance and more. But there are no such disclosures in the snippets which are put into the public domain. There is no transparency about the wealth or income of the royal family, and this is in the early 21st century. Nothing is known about the king's investments, how they are held, where they are held and income therefrom.

Various tax exemptions erode the UK's tax base as well. In the absence of meaningful data, it is hard to know what the correct amount of tax paid by the King or the Prince of Wales actually should be. The Sovereign Grant does not count for income tax purposes, but. But if normal individuals receive sums from the state to enable them to make ends meet, they are taxable. For example, the State Pension Carer's Allowance contribution based Job Keeper Jobseeker's Allowance and the contribution based employment and support allowances are all taxable.

One rule for the poor, one for somebody else. The King does not pay capital gains tax on capital of the Duchy of Lancaster and pays income tax on his private income only to the extent that it isn't used for official purposes. In the House of Commons debate on this bill, Ministers referred to, and I quote the words personal and another word they used was official expenses, but none offered any clear distinction between the two. Our support staff, palaces, various residences, servants, kitchens, chauffeurs.

Are they really for personal or official purposes? Hopefully the Minister can clarify. Presumably, whatever is personal should not be funded by the public purse, so it would be helpful to see details of that particular information. One of the most anomalous positions is that of the Duchy of Cornwall. Is it really a public organisation? Is it a crown body? Is it a corporation? Or is it just a private fiefdom? A state within a state? If it is part of the crown, then all the checks and balances, scrutiny and accountability that apply to public assets should also apply to the Duchy and its custodian, which is the Prince, Prince of Wales.

Its records should be subjected to periodic scrutiny by the National Audit Office to determine whether the organisation is operating efficiently and effectively and lawfully, and whether the public is getting value for money. But none of this applies to the Duchy, because we are told that it is a private estate. Well, is it really a private estate? The business of the Duchy extends far beyond Cornwall. It is one of the biggest landowners, spread across 20 counties in England and Wales.

Its operations include, or have recently included, manufacture and sale of biscuits, snacks, jam, marmalade, honey, chocolate, organic food, seeds, holiday cottages, farm produce. It owns warehouses, Dartmoor Prison, the Oval, cricket ground and more. Certainly does not easily fit with the word Cornwall. Here it extends far beyond Cornwall and it is really a conglomerate. Its 2026 accounts show that it has assets of 1.3 billion, and a financial surplus of £21.55 million. It is a commercial entity and it competes with local, national and international businesses.

But it does not pay corporation tax or capital gains tax because now we are told that it is actually a Crown body. So the Duchy claims exemption from taxes on the basis that it is a Crown body. Inevitably, these exemptions must lead to unfair competition. The payment of taxes provides for education, pensions and health care for workers and social infrastructure used by the Duchy to make profits. However, because of the tax exemptions, the Duchy does not bear any of the social costs of those of that infrastructure.

It is effectively having a free ride on the back of ordinary taxpayers that cannot be right at all. The Duchy complies with the UK employment and health and safety laws. It collects pay national insurance, it collects and pays VAT. This. This gives the appearance that it is actually a business subject to the laws applicable to all other businesses. But then at the same time, we are told that it actually is not a commercial organisation and can't really be treated as a corporation.

But what is it? Hopefully the Minister would be able to tell us what exactly it is and why on earth should it actually be exempt from the laws which apply to any other commercial entity? On page 92 of the Duchess 2026 accounts, which you might want to have a look at if you are finding it hard to go to go to bed tonight. Page 92 of the Duchess 2026 accounts contain interesting information and I quote. So this is in quotation marks.

Certain Duchy properties are occupied by His Majesty the King and his staff for living, accommodation or commercial activities. These were let at open market values that the total value of annual rent charge amounted to £503,711. End of quote. So this actually is a rent the Duchy receives by renting out Highgrove House. So the King pays rent to the Duchy of Cornwall, presumably out of the sovereign Grant. But the Duchy is owned by his son, the Duke of Cornwall.

So one member of a family is paying rent to another. Money does not go to anybody outside at all. It is retained within the family. So can the Minister explain how the how this inter-family transaction affected the calculation of the sovereign grant? Is it really a cost in any way whatsoever? So to sum up, major reforms are needed on transparency, accountability, calculation and the grant of the sovereign Grant. The Royals are frequently say that they wish to be treated as normal people.

I urge the Minister and the government to fulfil that particular wish.
17:12
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oh my Lord, it's a real honour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh my Lord, it's a real honour to follow the speaker. My, my two colleagues before me who have given so much detailed information about what is wrong with the Crown Estates and the sovereign grant system. I do welcome my noble friends, the Ministers clarification of what the. What is in the Bill, and it is certainly an improvement on what we had before. But my my Lords, is an awful lot more to do. I first of all feel I deprecate the lack of scrutiny that the other place has given this particular bill, because it's the kind of thing which is a.

Could, with all the help that they can get, provide some really useful challenges to what is is in the what the trustees produce. And of course, the first thing is that. Any challenges need to be independent. And it's. Most people would think that the. The trustees who are the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the. And the keeper of the Privy purse, which we can look upon as the Royal family. They do appear to be marking their own homework, which is not a satisfactory way of providing an independent assessment.

The other point relating to that is that there's a continuing feeling for many people in this country and in both houses, that the. I don't know what it is, but there's a sort of a lack of deference. And it's important to. They seem to step back from being positively critical of some of the things that have happened for fear of upsetting members of the Royal family. And you couple that with the. Feeling that many of the members.

And I do exclude or. Frankly, the members of my noble friends have spoken about. Have an expectation that people consider to be out of touch with. With a reduced monarchy and the financial situation of. Many people find themselves. And it's very unclear to me which royals are on what apparently are called official duties. And as my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, why do they need two helicopters? I'm probably seen as the black sheep of the royal family and critic critical group, because I have the honour of being quoted in a book a few years ago by from by then Prince Charles saying that don't worry about Lord Barkley, he's a nutcase.

I think that's a bit of an honour, actually. Well, it's one of the most important things which needs to be done in in any future investigation is what expenditure is applicable to the Royal family. As head of State called it official duties, and what ends up in the private use? Where does the revenue sits private or public? For the most part is the gone and is the value for money? They give an example. My Lords, the Buckingham Palace has been mentioned as a cost to the taxpayer, and it's seems as if a good job has been done and the.

The costs are reasonable and it's now nearly finished and that's very much to be welcomed. But not many noble Lords will know that the income from visitors to Buckingham Palace goes into the pocket of the sovereign. You'd think if a taxpayer is paid all these millions to rebuild Buckingham Palace as a emblem of the state and everything else, surely the income from the visitors should go to the taxpayer in a little bit of a reimbursement of what they've paid in passing.

It's it's it's rather a good example of how a building can be refurbished or high quality at a reasonable cost. And maybe those who are in charge of trying to upgrade the Houses of Parliament should take some get a few lessons from them, but that's a little bit. A little bit sideways. So, my Lords, we have the taxpayer paying renovation costs and the King will be Duke, Duke of Cornwall, whoever it is, getting the income benefit.

It's it is very odd and it's not declared a similar one is when royalty go on an official visit somewhere. It's a noble Lord Sewell. No, it's it's normal to for royalty to give a gift to the host and receive a gift in return. Sometime. They're small gifts and sometimes they're large gifts. But again, it seems as if the noble. As if the. The gifts that go to the sovereign or whoever it is, are retained by the sovereign.

But of course, it's the taxpayer who's paid for the gift that the sovereign gives to them. It should be one or the other. But again, and of course, if you ask questions, it's much too it's much too secret. My Lords, the noble Lords have mentioned the problem of property. And I find it very interesting to read recently to read a book by Norman Baker, former Member of Parliament for Lewes and Sussex, called Royal Mint and National Debt, which lists 21 properties which are royal residences, as well as 13 other ones.

Now the royal residence is 21 properties. Do the royals really need 21 properties to fulfil their royal duties? Because every time the. Whoever the incumbent changes, it rather seems as if the. The. The new one insists on buying a new property without giving up the old one. Do they let it out? And if they do let it out, where does the income go? Where does. Where does the income go? My noble friend has mentioned the Duchy of Cornwall, which made as noble Lords will know, made a profit of about 22 million last year.

But it doesn't, of course, operate like other other estates in. My noble friend said. It also gets income from people who die intestate in. In Cornwall and it gets a nice cut from the mineral rights from the mining in Cornwall, which was quite a lot. But it doesn't actually mean that the profit, even some of the profit goes to housing in the Isles of Scilly or Cornwall, or maintaining the services and the transport. And there's a big issue with air services to Cornwall at the moment.

I'm sorry, to Scilly at the moment, as noble Lords will know, a useful contribution would be a contribution to improve the flying to Saint Mary's to category three standard so that it didn't get closed for fog so often. But again, they've offered a very nice site on Saint Mary's for building an abattoir, which is really useful for the the local farmers. It's taken a long time for that offer to be there, but we'll be quite sure that having built the abattoir, which all the people will be funding, and then any charge for the use of the abattoir will go straight into the pocket of the Duchy, rather than those who have actually funded it.

So, my Lords, I welcome the National Audit Office's input so far, but it needs to be a much wider scope. In addition to what the the House of Commons should be doing in the future. But the first thing to look at is the need. Is there a need for this expenditure? And secondly, is it official or private, as some of my colleagues have said, or is it that. Is it the usual thing that the Treasury pays the cost and the. And the income goes as a profit to the private part? There needs to be a debate about affordability in this.

In this in the value for money for taxpayer is not evident at the moment. And it needs to be. But the most important thing for me is it most important thing for me is it must be seen to be undertaken by an organisation that is separate, either from government or from the Royal family itself. Now, whether that's a separate committee or whether it's a national audit office, I don't know, because something needs to be done to remove this kind of deferential attitude, which seems to cover so much of this.

We mustn't upset anybody. As my noble friend has said, this is a business, and if it's a business, then it should be treated on business terms and everybody's equal. And I hope that the in the future we'll be able to have a longer debate. And I hope that the government, my noble friend, will actually take comments from many noble Lords here this evening and consider with his colleagues how we can do to bring this into a really modern, affordable monarchy.
17:24
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah, >> Yeah, >> Yeah. >> My Lords. >> I will focus on this bill and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will focus on this bill and not on the broader issues. And I also intend to be brief, as my colleagues in the Commons spoke to the issues, and we will support this Bill. But first, may I say that with ten prime Ministers in a decade in the UK and with a precedent in the US, who feels free to play with the traditional balance of power, I do feel very relieved that we have a stable, non-political head of state, even if monarchy is a legacy of a very different past.

Now that role as head of state must be properly funded, as must the heritage buildings, though why we go through the complex myth that the monies are related to the Crown Estate is quite beyond me. Given that that mechanism remains, I do find it peculiar that future grants are set at a fixed percentage of Crown Estate revenues when these vary year on year. I mean, how does that enable sensible planning and indeed not encourage overspend? My Lords, my colleagues in the Commons raised issues on the transparency of grant spending and also submitted an amendment that the Nao, the National Audit Office, should independently assess the submission up front, rather than just the Royal trustees.

And rather than just waiting to review the spend in a retrospective audit, and that value for money assessment would be laid before both houses and require the approval by resolution of the Commons returning some democratic accountability and oversight, and a process like this might, for example, have asked the obvious question when looking at the numbers that are in the briefing on the on the sovereign Grant bill of why the increase in core funding in the grant is well above inflation. That is true for the year 2526, and it's true again for the year 2627.

And if that work had been done, we would surely have more detail than we'd have had a fleshed out answer from the Minister in the other place, who simply said, costs have risen. And I do think that additional kind of transparency and oversight would give the public much more confidence in the use of the monies that are given as the sovereign grant. Now, my colleagues also sought assurances that neither these funds nor taxpayer funds generally would fund state honours for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

I'm not sure that the Minister gave a direct response, but I interpreted what he said as an assurance that that would not happen. And I see that the Minister here is nodding. And just one last question. With

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the King choosing to live at to Buckingham Palace and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Buckingham Palace and the younger royal family generally choosing a more modest lifestyle. Are there plans for what we're Are there plans for what we're going to do with Buckingham Palace when the restoration is completed? Will it continue in its current roles? Are there new roles being contemplated? And how does funding work through for all of that? That's a my Lords, that's a the Sovereign Grant process, I think, could benefit from significant simplification and from greater transparency.

But given that we are where we are, we will support this bill. My Lords.
17:28
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful. for introducing this bill and the context for its passage. So clearly, the sovereign Grant provides the public funding necessary to support the monarch in carrying out official duties and to meet the associated costs of the royal household, including the maintenance of the Royal Occupied Royal Palaces. Those tasks are vital and it is right that they are provided for. His Majesty's official opposition supports the Bill. Like the Minister and my noble friend Lord Redwood, we recognise the considerable contribution made by His Majesty the King and other working members of the Royal Family in carrying out their constitutional and public duties, both at home and overseas.

Most of this is admired around the world, and the working members work hard. And of course, the profits from the Crown Estate go to the Treasury. As I remember when I sat in the minister's seat and the receipts were rising. Buckingham Palace alone attracts some 683 visitors a year, which is a big boost to the wider economy. It's not only a symbol of the monarchy and of the royal family, but one of the most recognisable symbols of the UK itself and our national history, which we want people to understand both here and abroad.

Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, The Mall provide the setting for some of the great occasions on which this country comes together for royal weddings, state ceremonies, the the Award of Honours Remembrance Days and moments of national celebration. These sites are seen by millions at home and around the world, and form an important part of how our country presents itself internationally. The sovereign Grant helps to ensure that the buildings and spaces for which it is responsible remain fit for purpose, properly maintained and worthy of the national institutions they represent, so that they can continue to be a source of national pride for generations to come.

The sovereign themselves plays a vital role in representing our country at home and abroad, and remains, I believe, a significant source of British soft power and of stability. As the noble Lady, Lady Cramer pointed out. So the central purpose of the bill is straightforward. The sovereign grant was temporarily increased to meet the costs of the ten year Buckingham Palace resurfacing programme, and as that programme reaches its conclusion, it is reasonable that the level of funding should be reconsidered and that those exceptional capital costs should no longer be reflected in the baseline grant.

Indeed, the principle that the grant should be reset once the resurfacing programme had concluded, was established under the previous government. As we've heard, the Bill accordingly sets the sovereign Grant at 99.9 million for 2020 728, compared with £137.9 million in 2020 627. So that's a sensible objective. But this bill does rather more than reset the grant for a single financial year, and it's in the longer term changes. I'd be grateful for some further clarification. As the noble Lord Lord Faulks of Cumnor and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley said, it was it.

It's our job to do the scrutiny that the House of Commons has hasn't had time to give it. I'm not in the same place, I have to say, as as as he is, nor or nor today in the same place as the noble Lord Lord Sikka, or the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. But I will leave the Minister to respond to their wider comments. So I turn to my questions on the Bill itself and to clause two and the new reference percentage of 20.5%.

The government have explained that this figure arises from the review undertaken by the Royal Trustees, and that it reflects a bottom up assessment of the expected requirements, alongside forecasts for Crown Estate revenues. Ministers in the other place also explain that the assessment includes future expenditure on the occupied palaces, modernisation of digital infrastructure and cyber security and other operating costs. That's helpful, but I hope the Minister can provide the House with a little more detail about the calculation. 20.5% is, after all, a very precise figure.

Can the Minister explain more fully how the royal trustees translated their assessment of the future needs of the Royal household into that particular reference percentage? And that leads to a wider question of whether the revised mechanism is sufficiently resilient to future changes in Crown Estate revenues. The attraction of a statutory formula is that it provides predictability and a degree of separation between the day to day decisions of Ministers and the funding necessary for the discharge of the monarch's official functions. But only formula is only as effective as the assumptions on which it rests.

It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could explain how the government expect the new arrangements to operate. If the Crown Estate revenues depart significantly from current forecasts, and how quickly the system will be capable of responding. And that brings me to clause three, which is the most constitutionally interesting. This provides for an appropriate amount of the sovereign grant to be one, which would leave the adjusted value of the reserve fund at no less than 10% and no more than 50% of annual expenditure, where the normal formula produces a result outside that range, and the Royal trustees cannot correct it under the existing mechanism, they must identify an appropriate alternative amount, and the Treasury must make regulations giving effect to it.

And I'd be grateful if the Minister would explain the basis for those two thresholds. Why were 10% and 50% considered the appropriate lower and upper limits? And what assessment has been made of the level of reserves genuinely required for financial resilience? More fundamentally, clause three slightly changes the balance of the existing framework. The two 2011 system is principally formula based. The bill retains that principle, but it also creates circumstances in which the Treasury will have a direct role in altering them, in altering the amount of grant.

Now, there may be perfectly good practical reasons for pride, for providing flexibility. Nevertheless, where Ministers are given powers to alter the level of public funding provided under a statutory framework, Parliament is entitled to understand precisely how those powers are intended to operate. And that is particularly relevant to new section six B, which allows the Treasury to increase the sovereign grant during the course of a financial year where Ministers consider that there are exceptional circumstances requiring them to do so.

The Treasury must consult the Royal trustees, and any such regulations require the approval of the House of Commons. Can the Minister give the House some indication of what the government envisage falling within that definition? But finally, I return to the underlying purpose of the Bill. There is a perfectly clear rationale for revisiting the sovereign grant as a substantial, time limited programme of work. Buckingham Palace comes to an end. There is equally a strong case for ensuring that the statutory framework is capable of responding where its normal operation would otherwise produce an obviously inappropriate level of funding.

So we support the bill, but I look forward to the Minister's response to the questions I have raised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. My Lords, thank you. This has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, thank you. This has been an interesting discussion and rightly so. I will do my best to rightly so. I will do my best to respond to those parts of the debate where I can, and if I fail debate where I can, and if I fail so to do, please do contact me afterwards and a written response might be better. But it is right might be better. But it is right that we have this discussion because where public money is concerned, this House is entitled to expect clarity, discipline and proper accountability.

And where the constitutional arrangements supporting the official duties of the monarch are concerned, this House is also entitled to expect a framework that is stable and proportionate and fit for purpose. I think that is what the bill provides at its core. As I said, it does three things. It resets the level of the sovereign grant to reflect the fact that the exceptional funding requirement associated with Buckingham Palace resurfacing program is coming to an end. Therefore, bringing down the sovereign grant, which would otherwise be rolling forward into the future with the existing formula.

Secondly, it does establish a mechanism for calculating the grant in future years where if the reserve was to fall below 10%, that might trigger a discussion of whether more was needed. If it went above 50%, that might trigger a discussion of whether less was needed. And thirdly, it introduced powers to adjust the grant in exceptional circumstances. The noble Baroness, Neville Rolfe, asked what those might be if you imagined a catastrophic fire, for example, and and one would want to respond to that.

A a a a a should that taken together. So taken together, hopefully those changes amount to a measured and a sensible reform. Let me, however, just be clear about what the sovereign grant covers. And it does not cover it simply. It does not provide any personal income to any member of the Royal family. It does not fund private properties. Just confirming the question that the noble Baroness Kramer asked. Its purpose is to support the monarch's official duties as the head of state, to maintain the occupied palaces from which those duties are carried out.

It supports staffing, official travel, upkeep of buildings used for state occasions, public engagements, constitutional functions. That is its purpose and that only is the purpose of this bill. Now, I know Lord Sikka and our others have wanted a wider debate about the Royal Family and the funding of the Royal family, and I recognise that they have raised questions about taxation, about the position of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Berkeley, about the. The Duchy of Cornwall, and I know these are matters on which the noble Lords hold strong views and considerable expertise.

But this Bill is targeted, is a targeted piece of legislation. Its purpose is to amend the statutory framework governing the sovereign Grant so that it continues to operate effectively. At the end of the Reservicing programme, with appropriate funds being made available. And I would like to turn my attention to those matters. We have had questions about adequacy or inadequacy from Lord Redwood and a noble Baroness, Neville Neville-rolfe. The the the completion of the capital programme at Buckingham Palace does not mean that all capital programmes have disappeared.

There remain large and complex a. Historically, there remains a large and complex historic estate that requires ongoing maintenance and long term planning that has been included in this budget. There is a need to address maintenance backlog, to address ageing systems, to strengthen cyber resilience. With something I mentioned in my opening speech to improve energy efficiencies. These funding requirements have been assessed through a detailed bottom up assessment of the Royal Households costs and an assessment of the expectation of the Crown's estates expected profits over this period.

But the key thing is the bottom up assessment, which comes to 99.9 million. And then that is reflected across to the 20.5% of the Crown Estate. I'll come back to this issue in a little while. So while the bill does reduce the grant, it's done in a way that should reflect the royal households genuine funding requirements for the years ahead. Rather than setting the grant to an arbitrary figure. This is something that has gone via the royal trustees, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Chancellor of the Exchequer is my boss, and I think that any thought that money might have been spent where he was marking his own homework would be one to which he would not assent. I think this has been a progress of some rigour, a and a bottom up process, but it still raises the question, and I think this is a big question for some of the noble members on on this side of the House of is this value for money? And Lord Sikka raised a number of questions about.

We have poor and needy people in this country. How do you think about the expenditure of this on the sovereign relative to all the other ways that that money could be spent? And might I just be a wee bit challenging on this? I tried myself to think my way through that. And what could I compare the sovereign Grant to? I thought I could compare it to a similar budget for your Lordships' House. It would be two and a half times the size of the sovereign grant, and I wondered if we might reflect on how the people of Britain listening to this debate, who, by the way, pay both of those bills, how they would assess the value of each.

I don't know for sure what the answer to that question is, but I thought my noble friend Lord Foulkes of of Cumnock would recognise that quote from Robert Burns. Would some power the gift of. Yes. To see ourselves as others see us. And and I don't know what the answer to that question is by the ways I am a big supporter of your Lordships House. But I have a sense that the people of Britain would a give considerable support to the payment of a sovereign grant for our King to be able to carry out his his his duties.
17:43
Lord Pitt-Watson Portrait Lord Pitt-Watson, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Labour)
-
-
My noble friend would give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course. There's another quotation from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's another quotation from Robert Burns. We Sleekit and timorous beastie, or what a panic in thy breastie! And if we were not in thy breastie! And if we were not to stand up and raise questions, we would be accused of being. We sleekit current beasties, and I hope that the noble. My noble friend will recognise that members friend will recognise that members of this House have a duty, a responsibility to raise these matters, and we do so with honour and with seriousness.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely and and look, I, I, I, I was not offering that in any I, I was not offering that in any way as a put down of the debate. Rather, how could I find something Rather, how could I find something that I could compare in government expenditure to the sovereign grant expenditure to the sovereign grant and I chose the the House of Lords expenditure because I can't see how expenditure because I can't see how I compare it to nurses pay.

It's just entirely. It's just entirely different. The noble Baroness Neville-Rolfe asked about the 28.5%. Again, let me reassure noble Lords that the way the trustees arrive at the relevant figure is a bottom up assessment of what is required to enable the Royal Household to carry out its duties. It's not by guessing a percentage, and I think the anticipation is that the £99.9 million is something that will carry forward in future years, but with the ability to adjust that.

I have already discussed. A. The noble Baroness Kramer raised questions about transparency and scrutiny, and a look at the government agree that these matters should be subject to proper parliamentary oversight. But it is also important to be accurate about the framework that does exist the Sovereign Grant. It is covered by statute. It is subject to reporting and audit requirements on a par with government departments, and the annual amount is authorised by Parliament through the usual supply processes.

The relevant accounts laid before Parliament, audited by the National Audit Office. So this is not a case of public funding operating without scrutiny. The task before the House is to ensure that the underlying framework remains workable and proportionate, and that the small amount that we are offering for the smaller grant in coming years is both adequate, but not and not a a a excessive. So, so look, the question before us tonight is just a practical one. Do we leave in place a framework that no longer properly reflects the end of the exceptional reservicing expenditure? Or do we put in place a revised framework that resets the grant, improved flexibility and preserves the ability of the grant to fulfil its core purpose? The government's view is that the right course is the latter.

My Lords, I think these measures are targeting proportionate and fair. I thank my noble Lords, all my noble Lords, for raising the questions that you have raised. But I think this Bill delivers value for money for taxpayers. It improves the existing framework governing the sovereign grant so that it continues to operate as Parliament intended, and it ensures that the grant will fulfil its core purpose of supporting the official duties of the monarch in maintaining the occupied royal palaces.

My Lords, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. The question is that this Bill be now read a second time. As many as of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this Bill be not committed. The question is that this bill be not committed. As many as of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The content,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be now read a third time. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be. Now read a third time, as many as that. He will say content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this bill do now pass as many as that of content. now pass as many as that of content. The contrary not content. The contents have it, my Lords, we now contents have it, my Lords, we now move on. Protection Against Detriment Industrial Action
17:49
None Portrait Orders and regulations: Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026 and the associated regret motion in the name of Lord Hunt of Wirral
-

17:49
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the three debates today covers measures that play an important part in the government's plan to make work pay. Delivering on our commitments to modernise and on our commitments to modernise and improve employment rights for the 21st century. These measures will help us reset and modernise our industrial relations framework. My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important reforms and trust that the House will fully support this package of measures. My Lords. Let me turn to our first debate.

I beg to move that the House approves the Protection Against Detriment Industrial Action Regulations 2026. I also note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord Hunt of Wirral, and I am glad of the opportunity to debate this important reforms, and I will address the concerns raised by the noble Lord in my remarks. This instrument was laid before the House on 24th of June 2026. This instrument relates to protection from detriments for workers taking protected industrial action under the trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992.

This instrument is being introduced to provide essential protections for workers, ensuring they can take industrial action without being treated unfairly by the employer. As a result, in 2019, Fiona Mercer was suspended by her employer for participating in and helping to organise lawful strike action. She brought a claim against her employer under section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 or 2. TULRCA the 2024 Supreme Court Mercer judgement ruled that the current Protection Against Detriment for trade union activity under the section of Tulrca do not extend to protected industrial action.

As a result, the Supreme Court issued a declaration of incompatibility between UK legislation and article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to freedom of association. This means there is a gap in the law that could enable bad faith employers to unfairly penalise workers taking industrial action. While it should always be treated as a last resort, this government believes that industrial action is an integral part, integral and vital part of workers rights to express their collective voice.

If a worker chooses to take industrial action, it is essential that employers treat them fairly and with respect. As the vast majority of employers have always done, this Statutory Instrument feels a legal gap, allowing workers to strike without risking detriment and aligning our law with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Protection Against Detriment Industrial Action Regulations are made under section two, three, six A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992, introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025.

This. Regulations section 236 a prohibit employer detriments aimed at penalising, preventing or deterring protected industrial action. This government is committed to protecting workers who take industrial action, while ensuring that employers are not unduly affected or unduly restricted. The vast majority of employers already act responsibly and do not penalise workers for taking industrial action. This legislation this legislation, therefore targets the rare cases in which such treatment may occur without disrupting the day to day running of responsible businesses.

That is why this legislation prohibits detriments only for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring industrial action. This means that during the period of industrial action, ordinary business practices will not be banned, provided they are not used for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring a worker from taking industrial action. For example, a discipline, a disciplinary action may still be taken against a worker who has committed misconduct unrelated to strike action during an ongoing strike.

Employers will still be able to manage industrial action in ways that don't involve imposing unlawful detriment. Examples of this include proactive negotiation before industrial action commences, and contingency planning to mitigate the impact of the action. My Lords, let me now address the matter of wage deductions in the context of industrial actions. An employer should not be obliged to pay a worker for work not done because that worker was on strike. Therefore, in common law, the principle of no work, no pay applies.

This means that if a worker does not attend work for a day because of industrial action, the employer is under no obligation to pay them for the day. This regulation state that they do not affect this common law position. The rules enabling the deduction of pay on account of a worker's participation is protected industrial in its or in protected industrial action will remain as they are. So this Statutory Instrument also adds section two, three, six A to the list of claims in schedule A two to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act.

Detriments claims will be added to schedule A2 and an employment tribunal may adjust compensation by 25% based on compliance with the Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance procedures. This promotes fairness, cooperation and prompt dispute resolution, helping employers resume normal business quickly. My Lords, let me turn directly to the regret motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord hunt. This motion raises concerns about the timing of the regulations in the context of the government's reforms to industrial action notices and mandates.

The noble Lord also expresses concern that there is a risk of increased litigation and administrative burdens resulting from the regulations, which the noble Lord believes will lead to employers delaying legitimate operational decisions and possibly affecting the delivery of critical public services. My Lords, let me address a concern that regulations and reforms to industrial action notices and mandates will lead to more strikes. My Lords, this will not be the case. At present, employers very rarely impose detriments on workers for taking industrial action.

There have been very few significant cases brought. Therefore, we do not believe that banning all detriments will have a significant impact on the level of industrial action in the years 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021. There were 24 and 15 tribunal hearings, respectively, related to detriments for trade union membership. The closest parallel to this legislation. We expect the number to be similarly low for detriments imposed for industrial action. The Employment Rights Act simplified industrial action notice requirements and extended the mandate length, reducing ballot frequency while ensuring employers get enough notice to prepare to prepare.

Providing notice before balloting. An action is still required for protection. In addition, employers can still withhold pay from workers taking industrial action, and this has always been shown to be the effective detriment to workers. In response to the noble Lords second concern, I do not agree that these reforms will increase litigation and administrative burdens on businesses or cause employers to delay the action. But Lords, in conclusion, this instrument is crucial for protecting workers rights to industrial action and aligning our law with the European Convention on Human Rights.

It prevents bad faith employers from exploiting the legislative gap highlighted by the Supreme Court, while allowing good faith employers to handle industrial action, non punitively and continued normal practices. I hope all noble Lords will support this instrument.
17:58
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Amen. >> Amen. >> Question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment Lord Hunt of Wirral.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister for explaining Lord, the Minister for explaining and introducing this Statutory Instrument to which I have tabled a regret amendment, and I look forward to hearing the speeches of the noble Baroness Cadbury, of Muswell Hill, and Lord Davies of Brixton, who bring considerable knowledge based on their long service in the trade union movement and in the field of employment relations. So they will probably understand my approach, which is that I believe these regulations risk taking this country back towards an industrial relations culture, which most people thought had been left behind decades ago when I of course, I served in the House of Commons and I go back 50 years, but I look in particular to 1979, mainly to the winter of discontent, when 29.5 million working days were lost to industrial disputes.

Public services were disrupted right across the country, and the consequences for ordinary people, in particular my constituents in Merseyside, were severe. It remains one of only three years since 1926, in which more than 20 million working days were lost to industrial action. That history ought to make any government extremely cautious about legislation, which further weakens the consequences of industrial action. And yet these regulations choose the broadest possible approach. Now, the government's own consultation shows where the concerns lie.

Of the 27 employer respondents, 22 were large employers with more than 250 staff. Employer representation respondents overall opposed prohibiting every detriment by 16 to 9. Among business representative organisations, nine out of 11 oppose this blanket approach. These are the organisations responsible for managing workforces, maintaining operations and delivering services during industrial disputes, and the majority of them warned Ministers that this approach goes too far and will likely harm industrial relations further. The cost to the economy will be real and they could be very substantial indeed.

An employer may still discipline genuine misconduct or take decisions for legitimate operational reasons. But if, however, a worker alleges that the real purpose was to penalise industrial action, the employer may find itself having to defend that decision before a tribunal. The risk is that managers become more reluctant to take perfectly legitimate decisions on performance, discipline, staffing or business continuity for fear that these decisions will later be challenged as a detriment. And the government's own consultation confirms, and I quote.

Any increase in strike activity could indirectly affect households through service disruptions. Transport, education, creating externalities that raise household costs. Stating the obvious perhaps, but where is the obvious conclusion that strike activity should continue to be the last resort? The impact of these regulations will hit the public sector and therefore taxpayers the hardest. Since 2022, around 70% of workers involved in labour disputes have been public sector workers, and around 80% of stoppages have occurred in the public sector.

Around half of all working days lost over that period were in the public sector. The increased costs that this legislation adumbrates are going to fall on passengers waiting for trains. Parents whose children cannot get to school and patients waiting for treatment. We don't have to speculate about what rogue industrial disruption looks like. Earlier this year, RMT industrial action on the London Underground caused significant disruption, with tube journeys falling sharply during strike days and some lines unable to operate normally.

In the NHS, the consequences are even more serious. During the BMA resident doctors strikes in July 2025 alone, over 54,000 appointments and procedures were postponed. Now taking the measures in the Employment Rights Act, cumulatively, the direction of travel is always towards more power for the trade unions, more legal risks for the employers and fewer protections for the public who depend on uninterrupted services. And the government can't even tell us how much all this is going to cost. Its own options assessment states that it has not been able to put a figure on the costs or benefits, or the potential impact on businesses in the public sector.

Yet Ministers have chosen the widest possible option regardless. And there is, of course, a broader question of public interest here. Industrial relations law must strike a balance, and these regulations tilt that balance too far. The lessons of the 1970s must not be forgotten. Britain paid a heavy price when industrial relations became dominated by confrontation and disruption. We should not be taking steps that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

risk returning us towards that model. I beg to. Move. My Lords. The original.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original. Question was that the regulations laid before the House on the 24th of June be approved. on the 24th of June be approved. Since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Hunt of Wirral at end to insert the words set out on the to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be agreed to. I am very sorry and disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord hunt, is seeking to reopen the principle. An important principle behind these regulations, a principle that has
18:05
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Portrait Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
-
-
been endorsed in both houses in the Employment Rights Act, and a principle that was well debated principle that was well debated where the arguments were well aired as the Bill was going through the as the Bill was going through the House before it became the Employment Rights Act. As my noble Employment Rights Act. As my noble friend the Minister has recalled, the principle we're talking about is that a worker should not suffer is that a worker should not suffer a detriment simply for exercising the lawful right to take protected industrial action, and I emphasise lawful.

The amendment before us regrets that the regulations prohibit all detriments for taking protected industrial action, and I was expecting that the noble Lord, Lord hunt, might have been arguing that he preferred a closed list, in which case I might have been able to express some sympathy with his arguments, although I would take him to task. But I think that I interpret the noble Lords speech as preferring there to be no list at all, and therefore no limit at all on any punitive action that could be taken against a worker who was simply exercising a lawful right.

And perhaps the noble Lord could clarify that as the noble Lord, Lord hunt reminded us. The government consulted business and other stakeholders only on two options, and that two options were a proscribed list or a complete ban, and the government set out their conclusions earlier this year. And the Minister in the other place further elaborated on this in a meeting of the Delegated Powers Committee last month. And essentially, the government concluded that a closed list might initially appear more certain, but they opted for a complete ban, which is what the noble Lord very much regrets.

In the consultation, there were credible arguments in favour of a proscribed list, but the arguments against were much stronger. And essentially it's not possible to reduce industrial relations to a list of foreseeable forms of retaliation. A prescribed list of detriments would not give workers the protections they need when they are acting on their lawful right to take industrial action. It's not possible to anticipate all employer potential actions in secondary legislation. An employer who wanted to get round the protection could simply do something that wasn't on the list, simply because Parliament hadn't anticipated it, and also a list could become out of date.

But again, I anticipate that the noble Lord doesn't want any list at all, and I do recognise the concerns expressed during consultation by some employers and business organisations. As Lord hunt has set out, and they are entitled to be assured that these regulations won't stop legitimate management decisions or expose employers to random claims. And I contend that the government has provided that reassurance. The regulations don't provide workers with a general immunity from adverse treatment. They apply a statutory purpose test, the Employers Act, or deliberate failure to act, must have the sole or main purpose of preventing, deterring or penalising the worker.

And my Lords, that is a significant threshold. As my noble friend the Minister said, these regulations don't make every management decision that might affect a person on strike unlawful. The purpose test provides a safeguard, and Lord Hunt's amendment points to the risk of increasing litigation and burdens with adverse effects on employers day to day business activities. No one wants more tribunal cases. Nobody wants to see more burdens on businesses. But there isn't any evidence that that is what is going to follow.

An employer will still be able to manage its business. It can make contingency arrangements, reorganise work, deal with genuine misconduct and take decisions for legitimate operational reasons. And to underline the point made by my noble friend the Minister, the regulations do not prevent the ordinary deduction of pay for time not worked because of a strike. The regulations do not give workers immunity from from management action. They address something much narrower the use of management power to punish or deter the exercise of a statutory right.

Nor does it seem likely that we'll see more tribunal cases. For reasons, my noble friend, the Minister has set out, these regulations are preventative. They provide clarity. There is no reason to believe that they will lead to more litigation. And I will underline the point. The right to take protected industrial action is a statutory right, a right that can be deliberately frustrated through an employer's choice of form of sanction is not a particularly meaningful right.

These regulations don't seek to tilt the balance of industrial relations in favour of one side. They establish a boundary around the exercise of managerial power. Legitimate management remains legitimate retaliation for exercising a lawful statutory right does not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord Lord Hunt of Wirral. Has tabled a regret motion, Wirral. Has tabled a regret motion, but I'm going to explain why I think the House should not share think the House should not share his regrets. And I thank my noble friends, Baroness Carberry and Mr. friends, Baroness Carberry and Mr. friends, Baroness Carberry and Mr. Hill and. Lord. Thank you. But first I have to give my apologies
18:12
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
because I'm not now able to stay for the other two debates, which I for the other two debates, which I have my name down for this evening, although I think both in the House can probably understand my views on can probably understand my views on those. But I've read across from my views on this one. I shouldn't probably shouldn't be here for this one, but I feel so strongly on this and the other issues that that before the House this evening that I feel compelled to speak out.

The truth is, I know which side I'm on. I'm on the side of the worker and how we all gain workers and employers alike from good and effective industrial relations. And essentially, this is what these regulations are. All right, getting rid of oppressive anti-trade union legislation is a means to that end. Tony's regulations, they deal with a gap in the law that the Supreme Court has already identified in the Mercer case. Fiona Mercer, a care worker, was suspended as a result of taking part in lawful industrial action.

The court found that the existing framework gave workers no protection against attachment, short of dismissal for taking part in industrial action. It held that this was incompatible with the right to freedom of association. Under article 11 of the European Convention that was inserted by the Employment Light Acts last year, and under that act there is the power to close this gap. Now. This gap has real consequences, as Miss Mercer's case is not an isolated one.

In the communication workers unions dispute with Royal Mail. In 22 and 23, the employer imposed disproportionate disciplinary sanctions, restricted sick pay and re-allocated overtime to agency workers. In the RMT dispute with Southern Rail. Between 2016 and 2018, members lost their free travel passes and so did their families and dependants. Their car parking permits were withdrawn and all their pay was withheld until the passes and permits were returned. Their applications for rest day working were refused.

None of this was dismissal and none of it was unlawful under the law as it stood and stands. But each of these measures caused real and material harm. Now the effect goes beyond the individuals involved. When workers know they can be penalised in these ways, some of them will decide not to take part in action. They are legally entitled to take the rights exist in law, but in practice it is restricted. This matters for the way disputes are resolved.

Industrial action, we all agree, should be the last resort and most disputes are settled by negotiation. And many most settled before any strike takes place. Negotiation works the essential process of achieving agreement. Because both sides know the workers can, in the end, withdraw their labour. If using that right carries penalties, even though short. Even those. Short of dismissal, the balance in negotiations moves towards the employer. Perhaps those on the other side of the debate could say whether they think employers should be able to dismiss employees for going on strike, because what's the difference? It's the pressure on the workers that makes the point.

The TUC. Emphasises that trade unions are essential to rebalance power in the labour market, and these regulations are consistent with that aim. The noble Lord Lord Hunt of Wirral weighs the spectre of a return to the 70s. Well, I think we've moved on a long time there, and the legislation, much of the legislation post that time is already in force. Now. The government consulted my noble friend Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill, has explained the extensive consultation and the decision to go to not use the list as has been explained, the test here just emphasised.

The point is whether the sole and main purpose of the employer's action was to penalise workers for taking part in protected industrial action, for exercising their democratic rights, or to prevent or deter them from doing so. Tribunals have much practice in applying that test. It's not new, so these regulations are essential to to close in a measured way, the gap that the Supreme Court has already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

identified. I will be reasonably brief as we carry the scars.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

carry the scars. From the. Original employment bill as it went its way through many of an went its way through many of an hour past midnight to deliver. And throughout the passage of that bill, we on these benches argued for a proportionate and reasonable approach, one that gives employees adequate rights without placing adequate rights without placing undue burdens on the business. These regulations should be judged by that test. At present, the law
18:18
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
protects workers from being dismissed for taking part in lawful industrial action, but not from industrial action, but not from lesser penalties such as cut shifts and withheld bonus or a missed promotion. Whatever the views one promotion. Whatever the views one takes of the gap, employers and workers are entitled to know where the line falls. The law should prove clarity on this issue, not obscurity. The test is narrow and obscurity. The test is narrow and that matters. The detriment must have the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring protected action.

So I'll be grateful if the Minister could confirm a couple of points to me on the record, since employers will read this decisions of this debate tonight, the ordinary management decisions taken during a dispute remain lawful. That discipline for misconduct unrelated to disputes are still unaffected, and that employers still can deduct pay from days not worked. I have three practical questions for the Minister. Firstly, guidance. The explanatory memorandum says guidance will be updated this month. The regulations will take effect from the 30th of October.

So what exactly will be published and will they be ready to answer the questions from smaller employees? Secondly, pay the expansive memorandum accepts the rules on how much pay may be deducted for strike. Pays are complex. An employee who gets that figure wrong could face a claim. Will the guidance set out how proportional deductions should be calculated and with worked examples and finally tribunals, the tribunal system, as we know, is already under strain. What assessment of the government made are the likely numbers under claims under these regulations, and will they monitor and report back to this House? The noble Lord hunt raises fair questions about litigation and public services, and I hope the Minister answers them tonight.

Clear answers on guidance, pay and monitoring will give employees and workers the clarity they really need. Perhaps more than a regret motion does.
18:20
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, firstly, let me thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I'm very grateful to the support from my grateful to the support from my noble friends for. Support across the House for Protection Against Detriment Industrial Action and Regulations 2026. Let me address the several questions that Noble Hunt asked earlier in respect to. The strike days. Let me share some statistics with him. Across 2024 and 2025, there was an annual average of 773,000 days lost to industrial action.

This is a decrease from the highs of 2022 and 2023 under the previous government, where 2.5 million and 2.6 million days were lost to strike action for most, the most for over three decades, but a significant increase from the previous decade, which saw an average loss of 345,000 days per year between 2012 and 2019. Let me remind him again in the years 2029 to 20 and 2020 to 2021, there were, respectively, 24 and 15 tribunal hearings related to detriments for trade union membership.

The closest parallel to this legislation. So we expect the number to be similarly low for detriments imposed for industrial action. The noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also asked about protecting public services. My Lord is protecting patients,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord is protecting patients, service users and public remains essential. Employers can take genuine measures to maintain genuine measures to maintain critical operations and address health and safety risks. These health and safety risks. These regulations do not require managers to ignore safeguarding concerns. Fair treatment of workers and responsible management of essential services must operate together. And he did ask also about whether there was a full impact assessment. I agree with the noble employers. Concerns deserve a substantive answer.

We conducted a consultation, recorded concerns about litigation, administration and operations, operational flexibility, and we considered them. The department judged the expected impact fell below the threshold, requiring a full impact assessment, reflecting the limited use of these detriments. However, we will monitor implementation through stakeholder feedback, and the published memorandum commits to a review in 2031. The memorandum also identifies the 10 million annual equivalent net direct cost to business threshold and the planned non-statutory review. The noble Lord also asked about business burden on businesses.

Responses to our consultation show that employers rarely, if ever, and I said this earlier, impose detriments for taking industrial action. These changes will have a very limited impact for the vast majority of employers. It is generally good practice for employers to keep records of businesses and disciplinary discussions decisions rather relating to workers. These records will help to defer from any speculative claims and also the burden on recording employer decision. I mean, there is no evidence to suggest workers will bring additional speculative claims as a result of this legislation.

Workers are already protected from detriments for their trade union membership and general activities. So our understanding is that few speculative claims are brought under these those provisions. So we would not expect this to lead to any increase in such cases. My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord God had asked about, you know, sort of the pace reduction and all that. The question of the precise amount of pay that can be deducted is subject to a complex case law and depends on the particular facts and circumstances, including the workers contractual terms and ways of working.

So it would therefore not be practical to codify this case law in this regulations. That position is not made by any more complex by this regulation. So the majority of cases, the matter for pay deduction is simple and often corresponds to one day's pay withheld for one day strike. My Lords, on the question about guidance, I would have to write to noble Lord after speaking to officials on that. But I know we obviously this is going to take effect from the 30th of October this month.

This Statutory Instrument addresses a simple issue which I am sure all members support, namely, protecting workers from unfair treatment. If they take industrial action. Many will have thought this basic protection already exists in legislation. However, the 2024 Supreme Court judgement showed that this Statutory Instrument is necessary to ensure workers are properly protected. This legislation will close this gap and ensure workers are properly protected. My Lords. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move that this Statutory Instrument be approved. My Lords, I'm very. Grateful to all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to all. Those who participated in what has been a very important debate. I has been a very important debate. I just say to the noble Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill, I do Carberry of Muswell Hill, I do admire her great record. She rightly received recognition for rightly received recognition for her services. To industrial relations, employment relations.
18:26
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
But I do think several of the points she raised were answering a speech I hadn't made, but I could have made. And I just say to the noble Lord Lord Davies of Brixton, noble Lord Lord Davies of Brixton, I always admire him because he's a fellow of the Institute of and fellow of the Institute of and Faculty of Actuaries. So his words are always particularly on pensions, are always particularly on pensions, to be taken very carefully. But really we just ask again.

And I thought Lord Goddard of Stockport posed three key questions, and I don't think they have been properly answered. No doubt we'll await further responses. But I would just say to everyone, these regulations are moving in the wrong direction. I remember fighting the election towards the end of the 90s when Tony Blair, who did win the election in 1997, actually promised faithfully that he would not reverse the legislation that had been enacted after the winter of discontent.

He was put on the spot OK, but he promised that, and it was fulfilled during that period of Labour government. There was no attempt to do what the Minister is now asking the House to approve. And I just say, don't let's forget history. It teaches us a great deal. Industrial relations has to strike a balance between the rights of workers to take lawful industrial action, the rights of employers to manage their organisations, and in particular, the rights of the public who rely on essential services.

And as I said before, these regulations tilt that balance too far. For these reasons, I regret these regulations, and I do urge the government to reconsider them, preferably before it is too late. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear, hear. It's a pleasure. This amendment will be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question, therefore, is that the original motion be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say As many of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. We now come to questions on a statement made in to questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Monday, the 12th of October. International update.
18:28
None Portrait Statement: International Update Earl Howe (Conservative)
-

Yes. Baroness, the Leader of the House, for allowing time for questions on this statement. In the other place, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition set out some of the serious challenges we are facing as a country, many of which cannot be solved through international engagement without serious hard work at home. As an official opposition, we are willing to work with the government on defence, on welfare spending and on support for our allies across the world, particularly Ukraine.

The Prime Minister's statement was upbeat in its tone, but it was perhaps a pity that he couldn't have said more about the specific challenges that we are facing as a country. The Prime Minister spoke at some length about the opportunities of a new trade deal with the European Union that might cut through barriers faced by UK exporters. It was encouraging to hear him express confidence that such a deal was attainable. Can the noble Baroness say what has led the Prime Minister to express that degree of confidence that a better deal with the EU is within reach? He said that there's a deal on the table, but what we didn't hear was what the EU could expect us to concede in return.

Will there be any red lines in our position and if so, what? What will they be on this side of the House? We, of course, want to see stronger economic growth. But if we look at what's happening in the EU as regards growth, it's not encouraging. This week, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, the Italian Prime Minister Moloney, and the Belgian Prime Minister de Vivar, all called for an emergency brake mechanism to help boost the EU's flagging economic competitiveness. My Lords, that shows that EU leaders themselves recognise the economic risks of overregulation.

So can the noble Baroness explain why the Prime Minister feels that new agreements with the EU would unlock growth when EU leaders themselves are battling against overregulation within the bloc? On a specific point included in this prospective trade deal, the Prime Minister referred to energy prices in Northern Ireland. He said, and I quote, in Northern Ireland, the proposed energy deal could cut wholesale energy costs by 20%. I emphasise the word wholesale. I was puzzled by that, and would be glad if the noble Baroness could explain what precisely he meant.

My Lords, I was heartened to see the Prime Minister's unequivocal and steadfast support for Ukraine. That is a position on which we have had cross-party consensus since Putins illegal invasion, and I welcome President Zelensky's visit today as to that. On a specific point relating to sanctions, the Energy Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Cameron, said yesterday in the House that the United Kingdom's ban on Russian oil and I quote, applies to all oil and oil products that originate in Russia, irrespective of the way that they enter the UK, unquote.

I need to ask, was that was that statement strictly accurate? Can the noble Baroness confirm that under the General Trade licence for sanctioned processed oil products, some Russian derived oil products are in fact being imported into this country? Can she say when Ministers intend to discontinue that licence? The Prime Minister also made a point of committing the UK to meeting our NATO commitments in full. Yesterday, the Defence Secretary warned of the risk that our allies, if attacked, would prioritise the supply of defence equipment for their own defence over agreed supplies to the United Kingdom.

And he went on to emphasise the strategic importance of building our sovereign defence supply capabilities. However, we understand from the Prime Minister that we will have to wait until the spending review, possibly as late as next autumn, for confirmation of when the United Kingdom will hit the interim 3% spending target. Now, if we want to build our sovereign defence capabilities, that is a long delay. That leaves our own defence manufacturing sector in limbo. My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the Defence Secretary on the importance of home grown defence? And if she does agree, can she confirm that we are going to have to wait until next autumn before we know the date by which the government plan to hit the 3% interim target? The recent Houthi attacks on Saudi Saudi Arabia have demonstrated how important our defence capability is.

I know we've committed an RAF Voyager refuelling aircraft to support Saudi Arabia, but in light of the most recent attacks, what further support will we provide if the Leader of the House can't answer that today? Will she write to me on the point? We know that the Houthis have been emboldened by Iran, and it's very likely that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is behind the threat to RAF Fairford. What reassessment of the threat have Ministers made following the incident at RAF Fairford? And can the noble Baroness say what, if any, practical steps to boost security at our air bases are planned? My Lords, let me turn briefly to the threats posed to our overseas territories.

The Prime Minister is right to have announced a review of the £35 billion Chagos treaty with Mauritius, which has been overwhelmingly unpopular. Can the noble Baroness say when this review of the policy is set to be completed? And finally, my Lords, we've heard increasingly aggressive rhetoric from Javier Millet, the President of Argentina, on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are British. The islanders are clear on that. It was reassuring to read in today's press of the amphibious assault exercise conducted in the Falklands by soldiers of the Parachute Regiment.

On the other hand, we hear that HMS protector, which we rely on to patrol the southern Atlantic, is out of action following engine failure. I'd be grateful if the noble Baroness could reassure us that Her Majesty's Government, His Majesty's Government, will continue not only to defend our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, but also ensure that we are prepared for any eventuality.
18:36
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, these benches agree >> My Lords, these benches agree with the Prime Minister that the UK needs to be a consistent and stable partner on the international stage. We want to build and maintain relations and that is why it is being especially the case necessary for those who are emerging economies where our interests are developing, like in Africa. It is therefore a disappointment that at this job is made harder for the UK by a constant shift of ministerial positions.

For example, three Ministers for Africa in just two years. What is definitely not consistent or stable partnership is the Trump administration. The US decision to assist the Russian war effort is reprehensible. The UK must do what we can to ensure that the US cannot circumvent our sanctions. The Prime Minister's statement does reference the refined oil sanctions and as the noble Lord Earl Howe had indicated, he referred to the sanctions that were introduced in the spring. I might be able to help him on his question that he asked the leader, because the open ended exemption of the refined oil products in third countries has now got a sunset clause attached to it.

As a result of my discussions with Minister Stephen Doughty, who wrote to me on the 11th of June that this exemption will be sunsetted on January the 1st, and the government issued a statement on gov.uk. I hope the official opposition has access to the internet. Can the leader, however, confirm that this remains the case under the Burnham Premiership? I very much hope so. I raised this with Lord Wood at questions, and I hope the leader can confirm that that loophole will be coming to an end and be able to withstand any pressure from the Trump administration.

We also agree that the government needs to be resolute in our defence against any Iranian intervention in the UK, and we need a further assessment as to how the IRGC manages to communicate, coordinate and potentially conduct activity here at home. I hope that the leader will update us on how we are closing all of those opportunities, but also ensuring that there are no legal means, by no means by which transnational repression by Iranian terrorist organisations, proscribed organisations can target individuals.

Here in the United Kingdom, including journalists. With regards to external influence, we welcome the Prime Minister's statement with regards to Russian interference in British politics, especially on that associated with the Brexit referendum. Now, the Leader of the Opposition has denied that there's been any Russian interference with regard to that. So I went back to the Russia report. And it's interesting that paragraph 46 of the Russia report is less definitive than what the Leader of the Opposition suggests that it is.

However, the difficulty we have in Parliament, and indeed the public, is the very last sentence. When the ISC Russia report drew what it considered to be its conclusions, because after outlining all of the information that it presented, the last sentence of the last conclusion states I quote. However, we have found asterisk, asterisk, asterisk, which suggests that asterisk, asterisk, asterisk, asterisk, asterisk, asterisk. This is not helping us have full disclosure as to the extent of Russian interference. So given the Prime Minister's statement on Monday and today, it is now time to publish much more material when it comes to the Russian interferences, without three asterisks deleting critical information.

We hope that the government's efforts for agreement on food safety for energy and law enforcement will be successful with the European Union. The Leader of the Opposition said in reference to seeking improvements in our relationship with the EU compared to the Brexit deal. I can quote from Hansard he is not going to get a better deal. These benches think that the previous government would have found it hard to get a worse deal, and proven to the fact that it took them years to mitigate problems with Northern Ireland, and has taken the current government to have agreement with Gibraltar.

And it does. I do hope that the noble Earl Howe, when referencing the Falkland Islands in our. Our commitment to that territory which I have been to the previous government forgot to include the Falklands in the negotiating mandate on Brexit at all. So when I was there, they were furious that they had struggles with Brexit. So we welcome the government's efforts to have a better agreement. Now, I was confused with the position that we have just heard, because in the Commons, the Leader of the Opposition criticised the Prime Minister for outlining the objectives of these talks.

She said I quote, I will tell him, as a former Trade Secretary, that does not is how you conduct negotiations. Now we're being asked what the government's red lines are. So there's a lack of consistency, I think, from the position of the opposition. But whilst we want the government to be successful in its negotiations, these are far too modest ambitions. The Prime Minister said that if the government is successful in achieving everything that it wants, it will be the equivalent of a £10 billion benefit a year after the 14th year.

But we are losing close to £90 billion a year now, and therefore the government really does need to remove the red lines. The statement, I'm afraid, has drawn to a close. The statement, I'm afraid, is silent on the world's worst humanitarian crisis on Sudan. Absolutely silent. The UK is the pen holder at the Security Council, and we've now had very credible information of the use of chemical weapons on civilians in this conflict. And the government does need to be clear as to what its intents are.

Are the government seeking a full investigation by the organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is desperately needed to ensure that there is no further scar on the humanity that we are now turning a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons in this conflict. Finally, I hope the leader can reassert the position on Sudan that we remain determined to see a civilian led government. We will not open an embassy in Khartoum until we have a civilian led government, and we will make sure that there are efforts to protect civilians in this ongoing humanitarian crisis.
18:43
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Yes. both noble Lords for their comments and questions? I'll do my best to answer as many as possible. And for the tone in which they expressed those, there's a lot in this statement. And it says, I think the extent of the Prime Minister's work since he took office just before the summer recess. And, you know, it's like a tour around the world in some places, the different issues as well as the issues at home. Can I start? I think both liberals raised the issue of the annual threat update we've seen and the issue about Russian interference, and this is serious.

I don't know if members had the opportunity to read Kenneth Macmillan's speech and the questions and answers he took, which I thought was highly significant in the way that he expressed himself as well. He did stress that there is an important difference between those attempts and the impact they can have, but it's also a matter of record that a lot of activity the Russians against elections and during the Brexit campaign, that there's not the much impact, but inevitably they will try for a reason and they continue to try.

And that is escalating. And I found Sir Ken's speech both alarming and encouraging. And I think the work that our agencies do to protect us, much of which we will never know about or the details of, but is seriously impressive. The noble Lord asked about Ukraine, and he's right. Absolutely. I think the cross party from both houses. Support for Ukraine, as we saw when President Zelensky visited here and he's been back in the UK, he saw the King today and the Prime Minister that support it can't just be moral support and words.

It has to be very practical support. And that was committed. And Prime Minister said before the meeting he won't go away empty handed today. And it is ongoing. And I think it's important that the House, both houses remain totally united and steadfast and robust in our support for Ukraine. You know, it's it's not it's also about our own defence as well. And there's a there's a self-interest in that. And it's really important that we carry on with that support the sanctions. As you know, we talked about and the noble Lord asked about the dates when the current situation on oil and gas currently.

He's right. I think it's about 90% of all Russian oil is sanctioned. And that includes products that are refined outside Russia, even though they've originated from Russia as well. The noble Lord Howell also asked about the defence review and the defence review, the spending review, and about the commitment and NATO spending. And he sort of implied that because we've committed to reaching the NATO commitments and spending 3.5% by 2035, that was like nothing was happening in the meantime.

It's a process to get to that, and Spending Review will outline the process to that. But can I tell him the amount of money the previous government, when we left office in as a Labour government, previously, we were spending over 2.5% that went down under the conservative government. And I don't think the conservative government ever got to 2.5% of spending on defence. That has now increased, and we've over 2.5%. And the amount of investments being made in our defence industry is hugely significant.

We've invested nearly £300 billion over the next four years. The Ministry of Defence budget reached £74 billion in 2728 and by 29, 30 will be 27% higher in real terms than in 2324. So it's not a case of sit back, wait, we have the spending review and make an announcement. This is ongoing expenditure investment that's going on now and should continue to do so. I think he's right to say we don't sit back and wait. We can't afford to do that.

The security of a nation is a government's first responsibility. The he. There's also a question about the Iran and the IRGC. Noble Lords will recall the state's threats legislation. This House passed and they are now designated, and I. That is critical. And that was also referenced, I think, in the speech that my MI5 and comments from the Prime Minister. I think the the issue of tying this in with Russia as well, the unwillingness of the last government to ask the questions about Russia are really important.

And I think the Prime Minister said today the Leader of the Opposition, a previous role, said she hadn't even read the report. And I think it you know, we do need to ensure that we are open with people. I think unless the public understand the nature of the threats and why the government wants to spend more money on defence, it's really hard to make the case. And so in keeping people informed, understanding the nature of threats, understand the reality of what this means is going to be absolutely crucial.

Sometimes, though, asterisks going to be really important because that is information that can't be provided in the public domain for national security reasons. And I would trust the I see to know when that is the case and when it isn't the no. Lord Howell asked, why is the Prime Minister confident he can get a better deal from the EU? I think I'd say it's hard to get a worse one. If we look at what's been happening and I. I looked at some of the figures about the amount of produce that is being wasted at the moment because of red tape.

The Conservative Party, I always believe in the past, was a party that wanted to reduce red tape and reduce bureaucracy for businesses. And yet it seems when it's Brexit that's caused it, it isn't the same problem. And yet there are so many producers that are seeing their products being rotting at portside being destroyed. The amount of paperwork to export Scottish salmon, which is a major contributor to our economy, is absolutely shocking. At present, it's actually costing millions of pounds to the economy every year.

So I wouldn't say that we can be guaranteed there's a deal, but the work is going on to make sure we do get the deal and the deal. You know, the agri food and drink deal, the SPS will end up to £5 billion a year, which will help. Supermarkets, will give better prices. But also it's a respect to those that are producing our food that it doesn't go rotting on the quayside. So if the Lord wants to say to farmers, we think the deal we've got is a good one, then I think he's on his own as far as I'm concerned.

I think it is a poor deal. And the you know, we will do everything we can and engage with Europe to get a better deal for the people of this country. As the Prime Minister has been very clear on this. Unless we do so is the Chief Whip. No, I. I mean, I've run out of time. So for those questions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I haven't answered, I will come back to you during the course of other questions. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lords. We now come to up to 20 minutes of backbench questions. And a first question comes from conservative benches.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conservative benches. My Lords, the noble Lady, the
18:51
18:52
18:52
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I, I, I thank the noble Lady, the Leader of the House, for repeating the statement just for repeating the statement just briefly, one word on Ukraine. I think it's extremely important that we remain very solid, and I'm glad that the new Prime Minister is and that there's such cross-party support. I think it is not only obviously crucial for Ukraine, but I think it's attracting international respect for this country, the degree of consistency and and and strength that we are showing to Ukraine.

But my my questions are about Europe. Inevitably, I very much welcome the Prime Minister breaking the omerta that has prevailed for many years. But I he talks and I welcome this about a serious dialogue about the different options for our relationship in the long term, I think it's important that that dialogue encompasses issues not only of the economy, but also people's sense of identity, which I think was completely neglected in the Brexit referendum. So I think I hope that will happen.

But you can't have a dialogue about different options unless the Prime Minister is willing to set out what those options are, and I hope that we will here sooner rather than later about that. I mean, obviously, my my side has put forward single market customs union, and they're going to have to be some kind of stepped approach. So I hope we get some flesh on the the the bones about that. And just lastly, the noble Lady talked about red tape of the Brexit deal, which the Brexit, the red tape hating conservatives managed to deliver.

I'm on an online scrutiny committee and I feel so much for businesses in Northern Ireland which are suffering from the current situation. So solving that would help a great deal. Yeah.
18:54
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lady. It's always the case when we discuss matters European that the discuss matters European that the official opposition say we're going too far. And the Liberal Democrats say we're not going far enough. So for clarity, let's just be clear. The Prime Minister made very clear that we respect the result of the referendum. We are not removing our red lines. They are clearly in place. And as he puts it, I think he's right to do it in this terms that, yes, he's concerned about the damage Brexit done to the economy and concerned about economic growth, but he's also concerned about trust in politics.

And in the last manifesto we were clear about the red lines. And in fact, the Brexit referendum informed the manifesto. And we said about the red lines. But what he's also said he wants to have all options on the table. So there's no predetermined outcome. And he'll come forward with more discussions on that. And they should involve all parties and everyone should be able to contribute to those discussions. I think she's right on the issue. On Northern Ireland, as somebody mentioned, the Falkland Islands, Falkland Islands wasn't considered during Brexit.

I don't remember Northern Ireland being discussed during the Brexit debate. I do remember a former Prime Minister telling businesses in Northern Ireland, Don't worry, there'll be no checks, no forms for you to fill in. If they do, if you get any, send them to me now. I don't know if Boris Johnson has had those forms that Northern Ireland businesses have to complete sent to him, but it was people did not understand the full implications. If we can remove some of the the export health certificates, product sampling costs and all, we can remove some of that red tape and bureaucracy in the discussions are ongoing at the summit.

That would be a good thing for businesses and for growth of this country. Yes, there will be there's going to have to be a proper assessment. I would have thought it is wrong for any government to not look at decisions that have been taken and make assessments of whether it's been beneficial or whether it's been damaging, and a proper assessment of any benefits and disbenefits and the impact on this country. And I think Prime Minister has made his views clear on it.

But that kind of assessment is needed to look at what action could be taken further in the future. But he's been clear that would have to be agreed by the public because, he says the public are the boss.
18:56
18:57
18:58
18:58
19:00
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
The the Leader of the House, for >> The the Leader of the House, for allowing us to have this debate. Can I raise a particular matter? The Prime Minister mentioned Fairford, and he said, quote, it's almost certainly directly the IRGC and quite properly and correctly has sanctioned two Iranian individuals who the government believes were responsible, for which I congratulate him. But will he understand the revulsion and. I choose the word with care that many of us felt.

The photograph of our Foreign Secretary shaking hands with the Foreign Minister of Iran. I honestly felt gut wrenching to see that that my Foreign Secretary should shake hands with a person who is a member of the government of Iran. And does she not accept that that sort of photograph and earlier messages that have been sent will lead to a result in the Israeli elections, which he may not be happy with, and care should be taken at this very sensitive time to avoid making those sort of handshakes, comments that will lead to people taking a view in the Israeli elections, which we might not be happy with.

And can I finally ask her? And I accept that she may not have a briefing on this point for the government's response to the announcement yesterday that President Abbas, who is in the 21st year of his four year period, has announced again the postponement of elections in November, when the government recognised the state of Palestine. We were told that this would lead to a democratic state. We were told that there would be a player in the region who could be respected, and yet they have cancelled their elections and I have received messages from Palestinians, particularly in East Jerusalem, who are really upset with this.

And I'm interested to know the government's perspective and views on this announcement.
19:02
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord. >> I'm grateful to the noble Lord. He will be aware. I know, certainly the Foreign Secretary will pull no punches in his discussions with Ministers from Iran, and he's been very clear on that. Governments through many years have been having meetings, and we need to keep that engagement open. We do have British citizens that are in prison in Iran, and we want to do everything we can to support them. So it's a meeting, but I understand the point he makes.

Can I say that on the Palestinian elections? I don't think he's there. Foreseen the joint statement that's been issued by the Foreign Secretary, the foreign secretaries, foreign Ministers of Australia, Canada and France as well. A joint statement has been issued. It says that they deeply regret the Palestinian president's decision to postpone the elections, as well as the presidential elections in 2027. And it is they go on to say, two decades now since there's been elections. Now we deeply disappoint him whilst acknowledging the significant challenges and impediments have affected the ability to conduct elections in a manner fully consistent with international standards.

But we commend the important work of the Central Elections Commission in advancing practical preparations to address these challenges and facilitate voter participation. We want to see fair, free and fair elections, and I can give him a copy of the statement, if that's helpful, him to see it from all foreign secretaries, but also tell him it reiterates at the bottom. It's very important, our long standing position that Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Palestine.
19:04
19:05
19:06
19:07
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
It wasn't quite what I said, but the the it is sort of in that area. And I think he's absolutely right. The public need to understand, and we need an honesty and transparency as far as possible, he said. It's not always possible to be completely transparent, because our information will put British citizens at risk, risk or our operations at risk. But if you have to don't have to read very far into the state of threats. Report from MI5 yesterday.

In the speech yesterday and the comments made by the Prime Minister that the threats are many and varied, and they're threats against individuals. It's threats against infrastructure and the nature of these. And we're talking about undersea cables, whether we're talking about cyber attacks, it's varied. And, you know, even this week, we've seen commercial threats on commercial companies, seen cyber attacks. We don't know where they've come from and how they've been done, but it's a threat nevertheless. So he's right. The public do have to be made aware.

I think we have a Prime Minister that is very keen to be as open as he possibly can. We've seen that for many of the things he said, and to look at things in a different way. So I'm confident that we can have a more grown up conversation about this. You don't want to alarm people unnecessary, but you do want to let them know the nature of the threats and what is being done. As I mentioned before, the work that's been done by security services, the counter-terrorism police and our police force in negating those threats and tackling them, many of which we will never hear of because of the fantastic work and the excellent work and the professional work that they are doing.

But yes, we have to ensure the public are aware that when the government takes this action, there is a very strong reason for doing so. My Lords, despite.
19:09
19:10
19:10
19:11
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
That's precisely why there has >> That's precisely why there has to be a full assessment of what all the options could be, so that an the options could be, so that an assessment can be made of what the country wants to do. To suggest that everything is right in Europe would be a fallacy and would be, you know, would not do justice to the debate. At the moment, we have real concerns about the made in Europe laws, and that's part of the negotiations we'll be having at the summit.

So I think it's premature to get into the argument he's having, because we've not decided on a way forward yet, but the kind of issues of what would be the benefits would not what would be the detriments. But I do put to him that when we when we exited, when we brexited, we lost the opportunity to influence regulations and laws within Europe. And so we have this awful situation now where these things are happening, and we're just not part of it and able to influence them in any way.

But the whole discussion of what the route is forward will be looking at all of these issues, because obviously they have to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taken into account. My Lords, before I call the next item of business, I'll allow a item of business, I'll allow a brief moment for the front bench to Its Its ACAS Its ACAS code Its ACAS code of practice on time off for trade practice on time off for trade union duties and activities. Lord Leong.
19:13
None Portrait Orders and regulations: ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities and associated regret in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Labour)
-

My Lords, I beg to move that the committee considers the draft Acas code of practice on time off for trade union duties and activities, which was laid before this House in draft on 6th July 2026. I note the regret motion tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I'm grateful for the opportunity to debate this code and will address the concerns raised by the noble Lord in my remarks. My Lord, the government believes that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination and enforcement, and low pay.

Trade union representatives play an important role, and this government is committed to ensuring that they have the capacity to represent employees and to negotiate with employers. This government recognises trade union equality representatives for raising awareness, promoting equal rights and developing policies that help organisations benefit from being equal opportunities employers. That is why, through the Employment Rights Act 2025, we strengthened the existing rights and introduce new rights for employees who are trade union representatives. The three key changes are.

First, the existing right to reasonably paid facility time for trade union representatives to carry out their duties has been strengthened. The legislation now makes clear that where a trade union representatives request paid facility time, it should generally be treated as reasonable and it is for the employer to demonstrate otherwise. If challenged in a tribunal. Secondly, the act introduced a statutory provisions requiring that representatives be provided with reasonable access to facilities such as meeting spaces, communication tools and appropriate workplace resources to enable them to carry out their duties or undertake relevant training.

Thirdly, the act introduces a new right to reasonably paid time off for trade union equality representatives for specified equality related purposes. The ACAS Code of Conduct on time off for trade union duties and activities issued under section 199 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act, 1992 offers practical guidance on the legislation. The code has been updated to reflect Employment Rights Act changes and ensuring effective implementation where new rights come into force in October. It offers clear guidance for employers, trade unions and representatives on practical application during parliamentary scrutiny of the Employment Rights Act.

This House sought clarity on how these rights would operate in practice, emphasising the need to update this code. The revised ACAS code provides guidance helping employers, trade union unions and representatives understand how the measures should be implemented in the workplace. It explains how these rights should be applied, including activities under statutory duties. Factors determining request reasonableness. Union employer communication about time off and how employer union arrangements are agreed. Importantly, it supports constructive engagement between employers and unions, encouraging cooperation and clarity over rigid rules to benefit both parties.

My Lords, the court offers clear guidance to help employers confidently handle requests and assist representatives in exercising their rights properly. In that sense, the laying of this code is a necessary step to ensure that the changes made by the act operate as intended from day one. My Lords, I will now turn to the regret motion tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom. This motion raises concerns about the code expanding the right of trade union equality representatives to paid time off.

However, it is important that we are clear about the purpose and scope of the code before us today. This code neither introduces nor extends any new rights or obligations. The Employment Rights Act established the statutory right for trade union equality representatives to take reasonable time off, recognising their vital role in supporting members and engaging with employers on equality issues. Effective industrial relations save money by reducing tribunal cases, improving training and lowering staff turnover. Trade union equality reps help foster constructive engagement on workplace equality.

Importantly, the act clearly sets out the specific quality related purposes for which this right to be paid time off can be taken. My Lords, this code isn't introducing any new requirements, but is narrow and necessary. Its purpose is to guide the effective implementation of the exchanges, which come into force on 30th of October. Alongside this code, my Lords, I hope all noble Lords will be able to support this instrument.
19:18
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this motion >> The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment Lord Sharpe of Epsom. >> My Lords, I'm grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful to the Minister for explaining and introducing this Statutory Instrument, to which, as he noted, Instrument, to which, as he noted, I have tabled a regret amendment. As the noble Lord, the Minister pointed out, under these regulations, if a dispute reaches an employment tribunal over the amount of time a union representative proposes to take off, it is for the employer to show that the amount requested was not reasonable. That applies not only to existing trade union representatives, but to the new statutory equality representatives created by the act.

Now, my Lords, how is that a fair starting point for an employer who is trying to run an organisation? The employer is responsible for delivering the service, for meeting the order, for keeping the production line moving, for ensuring adequate staffing, serving customers and in the public sector, ensuring that taxpayers receive the services for which they have paid. Yet, when an employee asks been paid working time away from their ordinary duties, undertaking trade union activity, the presumption now operates against the employer.

If there is a challenge, it is the employer who must prove that the amount requested was unreasonable. Now the government's own impact assessment acknowledges a possible consequence. It states explicitly that employment tribunal claims may increase because the bill places the burden of proof on the employer. The code states explicitly that what is reasonable will depend on the circumstances in each case. My Lords, that is an invitation to test every case, and we can have little doubt that it will be exploited aggressively by the trade unions to cow employers into submission.

The second issue, my Lords, is the creation of statutory rights for trade union equality representatives. Let us be precise about what this means. The government are not creating a separate new job title in every workplace. They are giving existing employees who are appointed or elected as union equality representatives, a statutory entitlement to spend reasonable paid working time, carrying out equality related union functions. But those functions are extraordinarily broad. They include promoting equality in the workplace, arranging equality related training, consulting the employer on equality issues, obtaining and analysing workplace equality information, and preparing to carry out all those activities.

These regulations could encompass requiring businesses to do document reviews, data analysis and meeting preparation. They could also be a serious data protection issue. Equality and pay information may identify individuals and much of it may constitute special category personal data. The draft code, it noted, was silent on whether employers might be expected to create new material, rather than simply provide information which already exists. But I suppose we should be grateful that the code specifies that employer and union activities at least complement one another to avoid duplication.

The government's own impact assessment said there is likely to be a cost to employers from representatives spending more paid working time on facility time. It also accepts that statutory accepts that statutory equality representatives are likely to impose some additional paid facility time costs and the cost in particular in the public sector, is already unsustainable. The Taxpayers Alliance, analysing reported public sector facilities facility time data for 2023 to 2024, calculated that at least 21,639 trade union representatives were costing £98.2 million in facility time across the public sector.

It found 993 employers spending 100% of their working hours on facility time. At the same time, a report by the Institute of Economic Affairs found direct public sector equality, diversity and inclusion, staffing and training costs of approximately £557 million annually. Also note the latest civil service facility time guidance removes the previous departmental mandatory cap, which was set at 0.1% of the pay bill, and it replaces it with a suggested guideline at the same number. Meanwhile, the Unemployment Act repeals the trade union facility time publications requirements.

I wonder why, my Lords, the government cannot even get unemployment down. Yet when people in work are are in work. It is legislating to give them more paid time away from their actual jobs. The taxpayer is being asked to fund additional facility time without a quantified estimate of the recurring public sector cost. The private employer faces additional paid absence, facilities, administration, data protection questions, and potential litigation. Public service managers face further pressure on staff time at a point when productivity remains below its pre-pandemic level.

My Lords, the government's paymasters really have bought some nice perks and I say to them, enjoy them while they last. So for those reasons, I regret this code and ask the Minister to explain why the government believes that this is a good use of business resources. Public sector staff time and taxpayers money.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yay! Yay! The original question was that the code of practice laid before the code of practice laid before the House on 6th July be approved, since when? An amendment has been moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom at moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom at end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be agreed to. My Lords, I rise to speak in the
19:24
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
space reserved for Lord Davis, who sadly cannot be with us, but I don't think anyone would be surprised at what I have to say. I was a member of a trade union before I was ever a member of any before I was ever a member of any political party, and that union was in the civil service. What I have in the civil service. What I have to say, firstly about this proposal is that I haven't had a single representation asking me to oppose it.

Not one. The second thing I'd it. Not one. The second thing I'd like to say is that. I have been involved in a trade union consistently since the age of 16. I think I'm probably the only person in this house who's actually been the president of two TUC affiliated trade unions. And I'm probably also the only person in this House who is addressed to party conferences of both Labour conservative and the TUC Congress. So I've certainly been around the block, as they say.

But my experience of trade union work was founded really in the welfare area. When I first became a trade union official, I was believed to not 16 years old. This is not because I demonstrated a great ability. It was because no one could agree who should have the job. So the Communist Party, the new. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, the various bits of the Labour Party decided that it should be me because they thought I'd be the easiest one to push around.

Actually, they were wrong. But what I did learn in those very early days was that much of the work we did was welfare work. It wasn't industrial work at all. I haven't had a day on strike in my life, and I haven't had a day out of a trade union in my life. So what I learned first about t use is that we looked after the members. The first chairman I had, who was a Red Clydeside, he used to say, all that matters, Richard, is are they in compliance? That meant that they pay their subs.

If they had, they were looked after and we had some many cases where we looked after members because they had problems with symptoms that. But also it it's worth remembering in this comes up in this debate, the employer often asked us to intervene. Often the call went out. Do you think you could have a word with him or her? Because you know what we're up against here? And people who went sailing in thinking they got cast iron case to pursue discovered when they spoke to their union rep that they didn't have much of a case at all, because the union rep would say, look, Jim, we had this a couple of years ago, and this is how it ended up.

And what you want is not going to work. So we were as much a part of management as we were part of any great plot to overthrow the state. So what I say in this is, firstly, there's no legal requirement in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this for employers to Get paid time off. It all boils

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Get paid time off. It all boils down to goodwill and many things in the trade union movement do exactly the trade union movement do exactly that. They boil down to goodwill. People want a pleasant and happy workplace, and the job of a trade workplace, and the job of a trade union is often to help to build that. But if they can't agree there is a resort to an employment tribunal, which is provided here. And I would hope it doesn't have to be used very often.

But if it does, complaints can be resolved by conciliation or by ACAS. So it's not as though this is trying to build up disputes. It is actually a way of trying to solve disputes. The final point I want to make is this. Years ago, we had a Prime Minister who was never my favourite. She was called Mrs. Thatcher when she was the Prime Minister, when she was the leader of the Conservative Party. Central office had three people devoted to trade unions.

They used to look at the agendas, go to the conferences, and they knew what they were talking about. My good friend John Bowis was there as the leader of that little band. I would ask that the president, conservative leadership looks again at deepening its relations with the twos, because I'm afraid often they give the impression that they don't know what on earth is going on there or how to influence it. It's quite easy to influence it. It's rather like my dog.

Pat them on the head, give them a bit of love. You'd be surprised how far you can get.
19:30
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Portrait Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the noble Lord Lord Sharpe might not be surprised to Sharpe might not be surprised to hear that I don't agree with him that the code is disproportionate, or that it represents an unjustifiable burden on employers or taxpayers. Just to get a bit technical to start with. The regret motion suggests that the draft Acas code is itself expanding the statutory entitlement to paid facility time for equality reps. But of course, as the noble Lord knows, it's the act itself which has done that in.

The arguments were played out during the passage of the act. So what Acas is now doing is explaining how the statutory right is to operate in practice. And the key question is whether Acas has produced a sensible set of guidance for implementing the law that Parliament has enacted. And I believe that it has. And to recall, the act provides a right to reasonable time off for equality. Reps of a recognised trade union for a specified purpose. That noble Lord Lord Sharpe described the purposes as broad, but I would emphasise that they are specified.

And I think that that is helpful. And the purposes are promoting equality in the workplace, arranging relevant learning and training, providing information, advice or support to qualifying union members, consulting with the employer, obtaining and analysing information and preparing for those activities. And it also provides a right to, again, reasonable time off for relevant training and the amount of time off its purposes, occasions and conditions have to be reasonable in all the circumstances, including the employer's circumstances and the practical requirements of the workplace.

The code doesn't turn that into an unlimited entitlement. So this is not some new open ended commitment on employers. The regret motion suggests there's insufficient evidence that equality representatives will improve workplace outcomes. And of course, we should always ask what evidence supports a new employment. Right. But no one can provide proof that every single instance of paid time off will produce a measurable improvement in a particular workplace. But what we can say is that there is long standing evidence and experience that properly trained workplace representatives can contribute to better employment relations, and they do.

The existing Acas codes points to the positive benefits to employers, employees and union members of effective workplace representation, including helping to resolve problems and conflicts at work. And the updated codes adds that effective representation can help to build trust, improve communication and support early resolution of workplace disputes. And my Lords, these are not abstract benefits. A workplace dispute that's resolved at an early stage is less likely to become a formal grievance. A disciplinary dispute, an employment tribunal claim or a breakdown in the employment relationships.

And I have spoken to many employers who recognise how union reps can be a valuable source of intelligence for management, helping the employer to deal with a problem before it becomes expensive, entrenched or legally contentious. And that matters very directly in Inequality Matters. Issues involving discrimination, harassment, victimisation or unequal treatment are precisely the sorts of matters where trained representatives can help both employees and employers and stop grievances getting out of hand. I fully share this regrets motion.

This regret motions concern about value for money. Of course, every pound of taxpayers money should be spent, should be spent responsibly. But I don't accept that the costs related to time off for equality reps will be disproportionate. As always, costs need to be measured against benefits. It's wrong to assume that the time spent by a trained representative is simply a cost, with no corresponding benefit. The potential benefits of these measures are workplaces where disputes are dealt with efficiently.

Managers receive early warnings and accurate information about problems affecting their workforce. Employees understand their rights and responsibilities, and problems are contained. Sometimes, an hour spent identifying and resolving a problem is an hour that saves many more. Hours later. The motion speaks of taxpayers funding. Quote, additional staff. Time and again, the legislation talks about reasonable time off. And there are conditions to get paid. Time off. The employee must be a member of an independent trade union, recognised by the employer, and must have been appointed or elected as equality representatives in accordance with the Union's rules.

My Lords, the motion is not keen on taxpayers money being spent on equality, diversity and inclusion, activity and bashing. Eddie has become a fashionable transatlantic sport. But leaving that aside, what does the code actually say? The statutory definition of equality in this context is not an invitation to pursue every conceivable form of activity. It's tied to established concepts. In the Equality Act 2010. Eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Advancing equality of opportunity between people who share protected characteristics and those who do not, and fostering good relations.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse me. I think that my noble friend could. Sit down because we do have to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit down because we do have to. Get on. Yes, we missed out on Lord Purvis contribution, but even so, every. Every noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Every noble Lord. Only has six minutes. I beg your pardon? The concept of equality are not wildly new and good employers, fully and already subscribe to them. fully and already subscribe to them. So. I'd be grateful if my noble friend, the noble Lady, would please conclude her remarks. To conclude, if we believe that public money should be used proportionately, we should welcome guidance that encourages employers and unions to agree clear, workable and reasonable arrangements. That is what the code provides and I hope the regret motion will be accordingly withdrawn.
19:37
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. have the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I warmly support the amendment, the regret motion by my noble friend on the frontbench. Lord Sharpe of Epsom. One would expect that in a period of great difficulty and challenge for small businesses, this government would be giving businesses a break in a situation of increasing inflation, tax rises, supply chain blockages, consumer confidence dropping, national insurance payments going up, youth and graduate unemployment, low growth and poor productivity in the public sector.

90% of businesses that the FSB, the Federation for Small Businesses surveyed in July, were worried about this act and only 18% in that survey expected business to grow. Now, of course, people criticise the Labour Party for not having much knowledge or experience of business and investment, but you can't say the same of the trade unions. They've invested £142 million in the Labour Party in donations since 2010. And they've really bought and paid for this legislation in in a way which is quite outrageous, especially when we are lectured on a regular basis by the Labour Party on ethics and the appropriateness of corporate donations.

But mustn't forget also, it wasn't just the trade unions. They did receive £4 million from quadrature capital hedge funds just before the 2024 general election. My Lords, this is problematic. And in fact, actually I would say this is an obvious example of the idiom of gilding the lily to add unnecessary decoration, detail or embellishment to something that is already complete, beautiful, or perfect, often spoiling it in the process because actually the system works at the moment, and this extra bureaucratic encumbrance for businesses will make it very difficult, because it's all very well trooping through the lobbies to support this piece of legislation, but other people are having to pick up the tab and mainly small business.

There'll be no limits to specifications around length of paid or unpaid time off. It could be open to abuse and could be extremely costly to employees. As raised by my noble friend, the provisions of paid facility time for Di representatives are broad and fairly novel. The Code of Practice acknowledges that, quote, many employers have well established ways of engaging their workers on equality issues. So it's all that works already been done. And I have to ask the question, why is there a carve out for Di? Is it not the case that trade unions already have practices and policies which are.

Focus on equality of opportunity and Di for all their workforce? Why do we need a special de facto, taxpayer funded Di carve out. Reasonable in relation to. Time off is open to highly subjective interpretation and will likely arise in costly disputes. And we absolutely know this will happen. Where employees hold multiple union roles, they're entitled time off may compound the accommodation and facilities. Provision requirements could also be extremely costly and onerous. And I have to say in passing, I think the number of responses for this code of practice is extremely small, frankly, given that the ramifications through the years and the impact it will have on the efficiency of business is pretty profound.

So, my Lords, maybe I, I will ask the Minister some specific questions about the. From the explanatory memorandum about the Code of Practice on paragraph 5.1, it rather blithely says this will lead to improved worker representation and industrial relations by giving trade union representatives the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers and increased cooperation between employers and workers, leading to beneficial outcomes. This is subjective. There's no evidence for this. What? How is this measured? What's the source? What's the source? That evidence suggests that representatives cannot always take sufficient time off or facilities to carry out their duties.

This can limit effective worker representation, whereas the example of that, where is the actual documented empirical data that supports those assertions made in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies this code, that code of practice that we're discussing today. It also says this approach supports clarity and consistency, enabling the framework to be applied by employers and union representatives in a way that reflects the needs of the workplace. Again, there isn't any specific evidence brought forward for that.

And when we look at the impact on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies, which is at page four of the explanatory memorandum, there's no real analysis on the impact it will have in terms of familiarisation and transition costs, that the increased facility time will have. And whilst I accept it will not affect small and micro businesses, it will also it will still affect businesses which are smaller. I have to say also that. This code of practice is unnecessary.

The system at the moment works. The system is one that business is not pressing for. This is a payback for the trade unions, for the money they've given to the Labour Party. And I deeply regret it because it will have huge consequences. It will cost people's jobs, business opportunity, profits, and that will be bad for the wider economy.
19:44
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> Good speech. >> My Lords. This code updates the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. This code updates the guidance last revised in 2010 and reflects the right that Parliament granted to the Employment Rights Act and on the offences. We will not oppose it. We have some practical questions that require answers. The new right for equality representatives applies only where an independent union is already recognised, and it carries the same notification and training conditions as those existing rights for union learning representatives. The code equality representatives to work alongside existing staff network rather than duplicate them.

And we think that's sensible. But much depends on the word reasonable as Lord Sharpe of Epsom as outlined earlier, time off must be reasonable. Accommodation and facilities must be provided on request that are reasonable in all circumstances, including the size and resource of the employer that gives the employer's room to refuse requests that are not proportionate and reasonable, but also leaves a good deal to be done that could be settled case by case. So my questions are these what estimates should the government made of the additional paid time off for equality representatives, particularly in the public sector, where budgets are tight? How will the government and ACAS monitor where the reasonable test is working as intended, and will the code be reviewed once there is evidence of the first 1 or 2 years, rather than being left for 16 years? And finally timing many employees, schools amongst them will be reading this code alongside the access regulations and new duties to tell workers of their rights to join a union, all coming into force on the same day.

Will ACAS published short Practical Guidance for Line Managers before the 30th of October. My Lords, join the passage of the Employment Rights Act. We on this bench should argue for codes of practice that give businesses and employees alike clarity and fairness, and this is what we expect the government to do. This code goes some way towards delivering that. I hope the Minister addressed my questions, but we are being content on these benches to support the government. House.
19:46
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, firstly, let me thank Honourable Lord Fowler for their Honourable Lord Fowler for their contribution and I'm grateful for the support and constructive scrutiny across this House regarding the ACAS Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities. The points raised today have been helpful and I will respond to them here. Now let me let me start by saying this. Supporting reps to carry out their roles can benefit employers, workers and trade unions. It can help to lay the groundwork for early resolution of workplace disputes, build trust and boost good workplace relations, improve communications, and encourage constructive dialogue between employers and trade unions.

Encourage a culture of mutual respect and contribute to healthier and more productive organisations, and effective industrial regulations can save both businesses and taxpayers by reducing the number of employment tribunal cases, enhancing workers training and reducing staff turnover. Now let me turn to the sort of the reasonable test that sharp Lord Sharpe US representatives at relevant employer asking for time off or facilities should follow the ACAS code to help them make a reasonable request. What is considered reasonable will depend on the circumstances in each case, including, where relevant, the size, resources and organisational structure of the employer employers are required to comply with comply with a legal entitlement to reasonable time or for trade union duties and activities.

My Lords, taxpayers are entitled to expect public money to be used responsibly. As my noble friend Baroness Carberry have stated, equality representative can help staff address discrimination, harassment and barriers to fair treatment at work. Those are practical workplace concerns. So, my Lords, I would question the suggestion that employees at an underperforming organisation should have less support in addressing them. Improving workplace relations can only contribute to improving services. So, my Lord, the government's approach is to support effective representation while retaining the requirement that paid time off must be reasonable, and I just want to also touch on the impact assessment.

I mean, the impact assessment cites research suggesting the equality representatives can improve workplace equality practices, particularly where they have sufficient time and meaningful engagement with employers. Our judgement is that effective representation can deliver worthwhile benefits, but implementation must be proportionate and its effectiveness assessed. Let me address the issue on small business. I think the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough addressed earlier. My Lords, as Minister for Small Business, I take his concern very seriously now, having run businesses myself for the best part of 45 years, I understand that when a small team loses even one person's working time, that requirements depend on what is reasonable, taking account of the employer's size and available facilities, a small employers circumstances therefore matter directly.

There is no blanket exemption, but a framework allows for proportionate arrangements, fair treatment at work and the practicality and practical ability to run a business must go together, and the issue on. The code has also actually mentioned about the code. The code has been updated to reflect the new rights added by the Employment Rights Act. The code provides clarity on this new rights. Let me touch on the issue about whether employers have been properly consulted and whether they will work.

My Lords ACAS consulted for eight weeks and received 47 responses, including from employers, unions and professional bodies. That consultation led to changes, clarifying roles, training requirements and practical arrangements. The published approach also provides for a post-implementation review. After five years, my Lords, good employers and effective trade unions share an interest in workplaces where concerns are heard, disputes are resolved and people can do their jobs well. Parliament has established those rights. This code gives employers and representatives practical guidance on applying them responsibly.

My Lords, I ask all noble Lords, the noble Lord, to withdraw his amendment and invite the House to approve the code back to move.
19:51
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Well, my Lords, I'm very >> Well, my Lords, I'm very grateful to all those who spoke. In particular my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who I thought raised some very good thought raised some very good questions about evidence and clarity, which I'm afraid the noble Lord the Minister hasn't really addressed. I'm also, of course, grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for his historical tour de force. And I would say to the noble Lady Baroness Carberry, yes, they are specified the statutory rights, but they can also be broad and they are ridiculously broad.

The point of this regret motion, my Lords, is that the burden is shifting. The burden of proving reasonable is shifting to the employer, and the government's own impact assessment says that it will lead to an increase in tribunal claims. The noble Lord Lyon just said that that it will reduce the number of tribunal cases, but that is not consistent with the government's own impact assessment, which I regret. I hold the Minister in very high regard as he knows. I know he's a very successful businessman and he always is very clear and admirable in his intentions.

But on this occasion I would like to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment, in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom be agreed to as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sharpe of Epsom be agreed to as many as of that will say content. Content. The contrary, not content, not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contrary, not content, not. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the bar.
19:53
20:05
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Could I. >> Remind noble. >> Lords of the speaking times of six minutes for this debate?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lord. I beg to move that the committee approves the draft trade committee approves the draft trade Unions Right to Access Workplaces Regulations 2026 and the accompanying draft Code of Practice on the right of trade unions to access workplaces. This Statutory Instrument and the Code of Practice were laid before Parliament on 6th July 2026. My Lords, I also note the regret motion by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of absent my Lords, this instrument and the draft Code of Practice put into effect a key measure contained in the Employment Rights Act, 2025.

The importance of facilitating union access is recognised internationally, with rights enshrined in legislation. The 2025 Act framework allows trade unions to communicate with workers in person and digitally. The starting point in this framework is discussion and agreement. Employers and trade unions first negotiate a statutory access agreement where negotiations are unsuccessful. Either party may refer the case to the Central Arbitration Committee or CAC the CAC may then determine whether access should be granted and on what terms.

The regulations before the House today provide the practical and procedural detail requirement for that framework to operate the outline. The relevant time periods matters for the CAC to consider for access and provisions on penalties for breach of a statutory access agreement. The accompanying Code of Practice offers practical guidance to employers and trade unions. My Lords, I wish to highlight certain specific features of the regulations. First, the CAC must refuse access where an employer has fewer than 21 workers.

Secondly, access is not unrestricted. Statutory access agreements were set up where, when and how access may be exercised. Access must also not unreasonably interfere with an employer's operations. Union officials will be expected to comply with relevant requirements on operations, health and safety, security and safeguarding. These considerations ensure that an access agreement fits the circumstances of the particular workplace. The regulations also set out circumstances in which access must be refused. These include cases where refusal is necessary in the interests of national security.

I know the noble Lord Lord Sharpe expressed concerns about the measure's impact on employers and business operations. However, the framework is designed to ensure that access agreements reflect the individual workplaces while recognising employers legitimate operational requirements. My Lords, let me now turn to the frequency of access. The regulations include weekly access as a model term. The noble Lord Lord Sharpe raises this point in his regret motion, the government carefully considered the views expressed during consultation. On this point, access agreements should provide a genuine opportunity for trade unions to communicate with workers, rather than being so infrequent that their practical value is diminished.

The flexibility to negotiate the access arrangements is intended to ensure that meaningful access or engagement occurs. Access should also allow workers to engage with trade union officials, considering workplace circumstances and avoiding unreasonable interference with the employer's business. An example of such a case of flexibility would be a business that operates a shift pattern. In such circumstances, the access agreement might be arranged so each access happens at different times, allowing workers to engage with the union if they wish.

My Lords, it is important that the framework have a robust and credible enforcement model. The maximum penalties are £75,000 for a first penalty order. Under an access agreement, 150,000 for a second and 500,000 for subsequent penalty orders. The CAC must consider a range of factors, including the nature and gravity of the breach, before determining any penalty. This ensures that penalties remain proportionate while providing meaningful powers to address serious or repeated instances of non-compliance. Penalty fines can be issued to any party, any party to the access agreement.

This includes third parties. The noble Lord Lord Sharpe states, it is regrettable that the enforcement regime has been implemented without sufficient evidence. The government has committed to reviewing the operation of the framework during its first six months. Following implementation, we will engage with stakeholders including employers, trade unions and the CAC in this review and publish our findings. The review will help ensure the framework remains effective, proportionate and responsive to the on ground experience. My Lords concerns have been raised about the burden on employers operational disruption and the model term for weekly access, and the proportionality of the enforcement regime safeguards, including exemptions for small employers, flexible access arrangements with trade unions, protections in regulations and proportionate enforcement regime.

For those reasons, I respectfully, respectfully disagree with the conclusion set out in the regret motions. These are balanced and practical issues. My Lords are therefore hope that noble Lords will support both the instrument and the accompanying code of practice. I'd like to move.
20:11
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment Lord Sharpe. agreed to. Amendment Lord Sharpe. >> My Lords, I'm very grateful to the Minister for explaining and introducing this Statutory Instrument to which I have tabled a regret amendment, but he won't be surprised to know that I take a very different view from the one that he has just explained. So let's begin with the government's own consultation. When respondents were asked whether weekly access should be a model term, just 4.6% agreed and 95.3% disagreed.

When they were asked whether two working days notice should be the model for subsequent access visits, just 7.5% agreed and 92.4% disagreed. So my God, my Lords, rather than as the Minister noble or the Minister has contended, this was carefully considered. I'm afraid it looks the conclusions at least look neither careful nor considered on the two most controversial aspects of this s I weekly access and two working days notice. The government have proceeded. Despite overwhelming opposition among the business community.

So could the noble Lord, the Minister, tell the House. What evidence did the government receive which they considered sufficiently compelling to outweigh that response? My Lords, these regulations implement one of the most far reaching changes to industrial relations contained in the Government's Unemployment Act. They create a statutory route by which an independent trade union can obtain physical access to a workplace, even where those workers are not union members, the union does not even have to be recognised by the employer, nor does it have to demonstrate that it already has members in that workplace.

And such an intrusion is a complete violation of the property rights of business. The exemption in the regulations applies only below 21 workers, meaning businesses with no HR department, no in-house lawyer and no industrial relations team or experience are going to have to deal with some of these intrusions, and it will guarantee that a large number of businesses will choose not to expand beyond 21 workers. To avoid the hassle of all of this, my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. During a report on the Employment Rights Bill, the official opposition tried to official opposition tried to protect SMEs from precisely this outcome. The Federation of Small Business explicitly supported that approach, warning that smaller employers simply do not have the HR infrastructure or the legal teams available to larger companies to navigate complex, complex access procedures and negotiations. It is procedures and negotiations. It is no surprise that the government opposed us, and unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats also abandoned the small business argument.

My Lords, in April this year, the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the Federation of Small Business, the Institute of Directors make UK the Cipd and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation wrote jointly to the Employment Rights Minister, and yet they have been completely ignored. Their conclusion was that the absence of a structured dialogue had produced an outcome which failed to address his address. Business's fundamental concerns over significant disruption from increased access rights and these new burdens, my Lords, also come at a very peculiar moment because the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, has said, and I quote, for too long, businesses have been carrying the burden of rising costs, end quote.

And he has promised that his government will, quote again, bring down costs, end of quote. So does the Prime Minister even support these regulations? And if he does, how does he he reconcile potentially weekly union access, new statutory response and negotiation processes? The Soviet sounding Central Arbitration Committee proceedings and potentially very substantial penalties, as we've just heard with this stated ambition to reduce costs on British businesses. And a reminder, those penalties can go up to £500,000. That is not proportionate.

The government's own costing does little to reassure. The explanatory note says that no full impact assessment has been produced for the regulations because no or no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen. Well, how is that possible? Is the government being deliberately ignorant or are they just incompetent? The public sector raises an additional concern. The Local Government Association warned that arrangements should not interfere with operational priorities or the provision of vital public services, including schools, waste depots and other controlled environments.

The Home Care Association has said that no assessment of its cost to publicly funded care was published, and that providers have received no additional funding to meet it for England's home care supported living and extra care workforce. It estimates estimates that if 25% of workers attended weekly one hour meetings, the additional cost could be around £266 million. Its extreme worst case scenario weekly attendance by the entire workforce exceeds £1 billion a year. The association also points out that around 80% of home care is purchased by the state.

So after all the talk from the Prime Minister about reforming care, the government's measures are going to divert scarce resources into paid attendance at union meetings. Resources that ultimately come from providers, councils and taxpayers. My Lords, I want to finish with two very specific questions. The first comes from a business organisation, and they asked us this this morning if this is what the government thinks a good business must do, and how they will empower trade unions against employers who fail to meet this standard.

What standards will be expected of how trade unions conduct themselves, and how do we protect good employers against trade unions who don't? Can the noble Lord, the Minister, address that very well concerned, well judged concern? My second very specific question to the Minister is this how is the CAC qualified to make judgements about national security? By definition, it can't be. My Lords, these regulations read less like the balanced and carefully calibrated framework promised to this House, and more like a trade union wish list imposed on our job and wealth creators.

So like in the previous debate, I would say enjoy it while it lasts, because we will repeal all the job killing measures in the Employment Rights Act of 2025. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that the regulations laid before the House on July the 6th be approved, House on July the 6th be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom at the end to insert the words set out the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be agreed to. I'm pleased, my Lords, to support my noble friend on the
20:18
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
support my noble friend on the front bench, and if the previous instrument was gilding the lily, this is overegging the pudding. I have to say, the burden placed on employers to demonstrate that access arrangements are. Do not reasonably interfere with their business, and therefore. And through referring the matter to the CAC are both onerous and time consuming. And I have to ask the fundamental question what right do trade unionists have to come into a business every week demanding to involve themselves in the technical, granular activities of that business? Even Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs do not avail themselves of those opportunities.

Why should this be part of primary legislation or secondary legislation? Why are the trade unions treated any differently to anyone else? Weekly access as a model is a burdensome expectation of a CAC, which would significantly disrupt businesses and employers. There are also potential privacy concerns around digital access inclusion as part of the union's right to access the workplace. And I have to say, it's barely believable that this is not about going in and having regular access, which is completely laudable to people who already trade union members.

But this applies to people who are not trade union members. So on what basis? If you have one person as a trade union member and nine that are not trade union members, should that trade union official have a right to go into that business, disrupt it, stop it from supporting the bottom line jobs, prosperity and opportunity. The code, of course, we're told, is does does not impose or the regulations do not impose legal obligations, but, quote, its provisions are admissible in evidence and are to be taken into account in proceedings before any court, tribunal or the CAC where they consider them relevant.

This arguably gives the code a quasi legal status, which perhaps it shouldn't have outside of statutory or secondary legislation. So let's be honest. Let's not be naive. Trade unions are going to push the envelope on this. They're going to be as difficult as possible using this code in order to have as much access as they possibly can. And we're also looking, of course, at the development of quite a draconian enforcement scheme via the Central Arbitration Committee contained in in the code.

My Lords, it's going to be time consuming. It's it's going to be bureaucratic. But I'd like to ask some specific questions of the Minister. The impact assessment has not been prepared for the instrument, because apparently the Department have concluded that annual cost to the business are expected to remain below the de minimis threshold. Are we really saying that there will not be very significant costs of these regulations in this code of practice? There's no evidence to support that.

In in respect of the of the costs and the benefits, the government says we expect the equivalent annual direct cost to business charities and voluntary bodies to remain below the 10 million de minimis threshold. I don't believe that. But it says the the benefits of the policy have not been monetised. This is a government that says it's absolutely laser like in its focus on growth, but it doesn't bother to monetise. It doesn't even bother to avail itself of the opportunity to look at data, to decide whether this will have a real benefit in terms of the economy.

And I come back to the point that my noble friend has raised about the statutory supported national bargaining framework for adult social care and school support staff. Do we really believe that hard pressed school support staff and people in the social care sector, which under all governments, are under enormous strain in terms of the recruitment and retention, in terms of getting to the next client, in terms of closing down another client to make sure they're fed properly or cleaned or washed, whatever.

Do we really think that they've got time to be negotiating with trade unionists when there's some of them are microbusinesses in very restricted geographical areas with a small number of a workforce. It's bonkers. And it's a completely it's it's a completely fantastical approach to the real world. This government doesn't care about that. It was warned about this by His Majesty's opposition. The chickens will come home to roost. And in those particular areas of school support and social care, jobs will be lost.

And that will be a very regrettable thing. And I would ask the government to think again.
20:23
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
Chair. >> Chair. >> My Lords, it's a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to note, sir, on the opposition bench, on the other benches, my predecessor as president of Balpa Lord Monks and my successor, the Lord Barber, and sitting behind them, Baroness O'Grady, who probably still has that fate to befall her. But let us see. I noticed the Federation of Small Businesses is getting a mention. Well, I seem to remember we recently introduced someone into this house on the Labour benches who claimed to be from the Federation of Small Businesses, so maybe the Labour group will benefit from the wisdom of that particular person.

The next point I'd like to make is quite simple. One as far as the unions I've been concerned with, this is not a payback to the Labour Party. Balpa has never given a penny to the Labour Party. The British Dietetic Association has never given a penny to the Labour Party, so they're hardly getting a reward for doing nothing at all, are they? What I would say, though, is that they are good, strong trade unions in their sector, doing a job to make the health service work for the dieticians and to make the aircraft industry work for Balpa.

And, you know, you talk about access to companies. Let me point out that if you look at the difficulties of rostering pilots, it's very difficult to get them in the same country at the same time, let alone in the same room. So, you know, this is one of the problems that has to be faced and has to be dealt with. But whenever we bring up anything regarding better rights for trade unions, we come up with a barrage of objections, objections, which frankly, I think are spurious because they need to be overcome.

We in the European Union have dozens of airlines. They all have structures similar to this. And so there's nothing exceptional about giving access to businesses, to trade unions. The fact that I don't think there is an aircraft company with under 21 employees, but this has never been a great difficulty. The next point I'd quickly like to make is that the prospect of bringing this in fulfils the demand, which has been around for at least the last 20 years, and it's about time it was done.

The access of workplaces is a fundamental to trade unions, and people aren't going to be going down there every week saying, oh well, it's Thursday,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we've got to go down to Bristows aircraft and Insist on getting through the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Insist on getting through the door. That's not the way it works. The way things do work, though, is The way things do work, though, is that if you get an employer who is determined to cause problems, they determined to cause problems, they can cause them. I always go back to the notion of Eddy Shah. Remember the notion of Eddy Shah. Remember him and Grunwick who put all the objections he could find into the way of recognising the tea movement.

And I was delighted to be on the picket line at Grunwick with Shirley Williams of blessed memory, and not necessarily any party that I belong to. So, you know, let's get real about this. I think that if you want to mess things up, you can. But there is no reason why a responsible trade union, which most of them are at least 100% anyway, maybe a few more than that. If they want access, they have a right to put their claim before the workers.

After all, it's the workers who sign up. It's their money that gets deducted from their pay packet. It's their money that gets paid over. And one of the big problems in all the unions I've served on has always been to keep up the membership, to persuade people not to resign, to persuade people that you're providing something for them. Most of the time, what you're providing for them are welfare services. People join unions to be looked after, not to be campaigned against.

So I end where I did my last speech to ask the Conservative Party, have a fundamental rethink of the way it deals with the 2 million conservative voters who hold trade union cards. These are not outsiders. These are our people. And they deserve a bit better than they sometimes hear.
20:29
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Powell. And I have an answer to that, Lord Bell. When an answer to that, Lord Bell. When I went to Cambridge first, I used to meet quite a lot of people. I'd come from Ireland. And I hadn't been familiar with the British trade union movement. Two people who I worked with. And in Cambridge told me they weren't academics. They were doing another job. They told me that they wanted work, but they couldn't get work because they were in a trade.

They weren't in the trade union. And yet, when they applied to join a trade union and were admitted, they were taken out of on strike, so they couldn't work. And but they joined the union because they couldn't get work unless they joined it. And perhaps they're still members of that union. I haven't kept in touch. Anyway, my Lords, it's I Lord Balfe is a very old and dear friend, and I think we disagree about this. He introduced me into your Lordships House and I have great respect for him.

But I oppose the regulations here on this guidance on trade union number two, 2026 2026 trade unions. This one, because it detracts from the efficient and productive operation of businesses and factories. And I speak as an employer of small employer, but an employer, I wouldn't be under these regulations, but heaven knows, if I had a bigger organisation, I would be. It brings unknown costs to employers and they are unknown from what our noble. My noble friend has said, and there's been no reliable costing.

And. They go against fairness and politicise the workplace. There will be a serious impact on efficiency because of the need to facilitate, perhaps weekly meetings by vacating a room for them and providing it backup and keeping compliance records. There will be a definite loss of productivity and profitability. Just think of small businesses which employ the threshold of 21 employees, or the much smaller business of maybe ten members, but is associated with other businesses, are owned by the same employer who have a much larger workforce.

They will be included in these regulations. There will be overheads for costs, for security, for IT and energy, and moreover, there will be disruption to working schedules, co-working team working and all the practices which make for good outcomes and successful productivity. My noble friend Lord sharp has drawn attention to the fact of our not having any reliable assessment provided by the government of the costs and impact. It could be anything. Judging by the Code of Practice, stipulations for access and working hours, providing the rooms, digital liaison and so on, and indeed the model for reasonableness laid down.

Here is a weekly meeting. A weekly meeting takes place that would be considered reasonable. No wonder, as Lord Sharpe has said, so many, so few employers support the weekly meeting arrangements. Just say each meeting takes an hour or more of working time. How much working time is lost for an employer over the whole year? With a payroll of 21 or 30 or 40 employees, and you total it up for the total productivity in this country at a time when our productivity and growth is abysmal.

Finally, the trade unions are essentially an arm of the Labour Party. I oppose the politicisation of the workplace, it and the labour movement. There are many affiliate most many affiliated unions. I take the noble Baroness Cass point. Not every union is affiliated to the Labour Party, but many of them support the Labour Party and are Lord Monks. I'd love to hear from you who wish. But not now. Finally, there are many working people to whose beliefs and. Lord Jackson has said this, whose belief, who find their beliefs.

Some of their aims and practices and ideals are inimical. How can it be fair to give them a dominant position under law to propagandise amongst the workforce and recruit? And this is quite apart from undermining property rights, which has been mentioned. The answer is not to give rights to organisations with other political views, but perhaps that is one answer. Rather, it is to avoid entirely the politicisation of the workforce.
20:34
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I declare an interest as an employee of a large multinational employer. I wish to speak against these regulations, not because I oppose trade unions or worker representation, but because this government has chosen to ignore democratic consultation on an unprecedented scale, imposed a framework that will damage the small businesses they claim to champion, and crossed a line on the employer autonomy from which we may not easily return. This government consulted on these proposals. Over 1600 responses came in.

As my noble friend Lord Sharpe has mentioned, but I believe worth repeating on the central question of weekly access, the heart of this regime, 95.3% of respondents disagreed on the two two working day notice requirement, 92.4% disagreed. These are not marginal objections. They're not even 5050 models. They are landslide rejections. The kind of number of politician usually only sees in a province he was not expecting to lose, and the government has ignored them entirely. This is not how government should work.

When a consultation returns a verdict. This one sided. There is a democratic obligation either to redesign the policy or to explain with rigour why you are overriding the people you consulted. The government has done neither. It has simply filed the responses away somewhere dark and ploughed ahead regardless. That should concern this House on principle alone. But the principle is not the only problem. The competence is appalling. The 21 worker threshold catches businesses that never asked for this intrusion and barely have the paperwork to cope with it.

The Institute of Directors surveyed 680 business leaders. Only ten supported the 21 worker threshold. 74% wanted a higher bar. Yet here we are, imposing weekly union access on firms with modest HR capacity, minimal administrative resources and no history of industrial relations complexity. The regulations will create bureaucracy wildly out of proportion to the risk they address. For retailers with multiple sites for social care providers already stretched to breaking, for universities, managing student safety and data protection, this framework is a sledgehammer, looking rather pleased with itself over a nut.

It has yet to actually crack, and the costs assumptions are thin in the way that a stage magicians assurances are thin. The impact assessment does not monetise every business burden. It does not fully capture management time, facilities, paid attendance at access meetings, or the opportunity cost of disrupted operations. For public services, social care, local government. These are unfunded costs landing on budgets already down to their last few pence down the back of the sofa. The code recommends full pay for workers attending access meetings in work time.

The Home Care Association estimates that this could be ruinous in publicly funded care. The government has not told us how that cost is justified, or who, precisely, is expected to foot the bill beyond, presumably hope. But here is what troubles me most. These regulations cross a constitutional line and not quietly. For decades, we have expected workplace relations to reflect negotiation between employer and union, not a unilateral statutory entitlement handed down from on high. This regime says whether you recognise a union or not, the state will now let itself in.

That is not a tweak to employment law. It is a fundamental shift in the relationship between employer, worker and state. Dressed up in the modest clothing of a Statutory Instrument, it erodes employer autonomy in ways that will not be undone merely by regretting them later. Which is, I note all this motion actually allows us to do. I do not oppose worker voice. I oppose this vehicle for it. One rejected by consultation, imposed without justification, misaligned with business reality, and dangerous to the principle of voluntary engagement.

This government has in effect asked the country a question, dislike the answer and gone ahead regardless. I support this regret. Motion press the government to return to the drawing board and perhaps this time take on board what comes back. To my Lords, some elements.
20:39
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-
Of of these regulations are, to a degree, reasonable. The employer's response period, employer's response period, originally proposed at one week, is following our representations earlier. Now three and access agreements are capped at two years. I, I acknowledge those things, and I also take comfort from the fact that apparently not a single Labour backbencher opposes my noble friend's motion. If I look at the speaker list. But none of this changes the fact that the Act squats here as a major destroyer of growth, a gift from the former Prime Minister to the new one, helping fulfil his expressed desire to take our economy back to that decade of strife.

The 1970s, because non-unionised companies can thrive, while unionised ones tend to go to the wall. And because of that, now, nine out of ten private sector employees are not unionised, so are not union members, I should say. So. For most private businesses, this will be their first dealing with unions in decades. And in a fiercely competitive global market, companies have to be flexible and agile. Union Unionisation slows decisions, blocks rapid change of direction, and adds red tape. Now, companies want harmony and cooperation with their workforce as the noble Lord Balfe.

My noble friend Lord Balfe said. So balance guidelines are crucial if they're unbalanced in favour of the union, the company has to continually cave into the Union so as to avoid sanction by this Central Arbitration Committee. Onerous weekly union meetings the potential for ceac complaints if managers even ask workers what took place with these guidelines, your Lordships will be amazed that how many companies will stop growing at 20 workers to the detriment of the economy? The CAC has been given enormous latitude with nebulous guidance permitting arbitrary decisions.

Its three person panels comprised a lawyer academic in the chair, a member from the trade union side and an employer member, a so-called drawn in the government's own recruitment literature, mainly from HR directors and employment relations leaders, not from people who have built businesses. To an HR leader, a union is a normal part of the corporate landscape, so the introduction of a union will seem manageable in the guidelines words. But to an entrepreneur, the person on whom our country's growth depends.

A union is an obstacle to succeeding in a highly competitive world. So I ask the noble Minister for assurances that in the promised spring consultation, the government will propose changes in three areas. First, lower the penalties. After consultation, the government, in an extraordinary decision, raised the maximum fine from 150,000 to 500,000 who consulted them to do that? How can a business with 21 workers. Sorry, sorry, I've lost my place. Fines should not be so large that they drive a company into financial distress or derail its growth.

And these even 75,000, for many businesses will second, protect working time. The weekly visit presumption should go. I saw noble Lords on the Labour benches nodding when the noble Lord Bell said weekly was unnecessary and wouldn't be wanted. So why is it here? Yeah. How can a business with 21 workers cope with weekly visits? Meetings should default to breaks or the end of shifts, and where they fall in paid time, they should be limited to, say, 30 or at best, 45 minutes.

Third, reform the digital access guidelines. Companies should have a right of reply through the same channel and should not be obliged to disseminate unlawful material, which the guidelines do oblige them to do right now, beyond meetings, Union communications through company channels should also be limited to one a week, and companies must be free to log email delivery and link activity for security purposes. With the monitoring ban agreed to mean only scrutiny aimed at identifying workers engagement with union material.

Finally, every worker, member or not should be allowed to unsubscribe. My Lords, should the government lose the next election, much of this will matter less. Apart from. Meantime, further dramatic losses in economic growth because an incoming conservative government will largely repeal this damaging act. Until then, I ask the government please limit the damage by improving these far too union friendly guidelines. You.
20:45
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Arise for the. obviously haven't got the same crystal ball the Conservatives have got at the moment, and I see no evidence of a conservative evidence of a conservative government on the horizon as we speak, and I am completely supported by my group on that. The right of access was in the government's manifesto and on these benches. We accept the mandate for it, but we're more interested in how it works practically. And following on from Lloyd, from Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, the first practical question I would ask is the frequency.

I mean, the regulation says the CAC treat weekly access as reasonable, although the unions may ask for less. What evidence does the government rely on in setting one weekly access, and what are the consultation responses say about it? Secondly, the practicalities of a visit. As I understand it, the code does not allow. Does not say how long a visit should last for, or whether an employee can keep part of the team working to maintain cover for a care home, a hospital ward or a small hotel.

These are questions that matter. And will the Minister set out the government's expectations? And thirdly, the employer does not control all the sites. Many workers in security, cleaning and facilities management are based on clients premises. The regulations allow a complainant and ultimately a penalty against a site owner who prevents access. So how has the Minister square that particular circle and how will it work in practice for small contractors and their clients and for timing? Once again, these rules start on the 30th of October, barely a fortnight from now, 15 working days to respond to a request.

And as has been said earlier, penalties of up to half £1 million for repeated breaches will employers have practical guidance in hand before the date starts? And so I'd like the Minister to give me two commitments tonight. One, to publish data on access requests, CAC decisions and penalty broken down by the size of the employer and a first review within two years rather than five. So anything unworkable could be put right and quickly. The questions raised by Lord Sharpe and others deserve answers.

I hope tonight the Minister can give them.
20:47
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Well, firstly, let me thank all noble Lords for their contribution and grateful for some support across the House on the trade unions right to access Workplace Regulations 2026 and a draft Code of Practice on Trade union Right of Access. My Lords, before I answer some of the points raised, may I start by respectfully saying to the noble Lord Lord Sharpe and some noble Lords on the opposite side. Now this Employment Rights Act has sometimes been portrayed as if workers and employers interests sit on opposite sides of the ledger.

I do not see it that way. This act is a small but important step in the right direction, establishing a stronger floor for the labour market and greater security for working people. Good employers should not fear a race to the top. Many already go well beyond the statutory minimum. Now, I've said earlier, I've spent 45 years in business. I know that the relationship between an employer and a staff is central to success. People who feel valued and secure have a stronger stake in helping that business succeed.

So I just want to put that on record. The whole point about union representation and and employers, in order for them to come together to address issues. And let me also share some statistics here. Workplace conflict currently costs employers almost £30 billion a year, equivalent to £20,000 per employee in 2022 and 2023. The UK lost more days in strike in any year since the 1980s and the NHS. NHS strikes during 2023 alone cost the payer more than £1 billion excess under a statutory statutory access agreement cannot be used for the purposes of ongoing industrial action.

Industrial action should and must always be the last resort. The government believes that better communication between employers, workers and trade unions can help support more stable workplace relations. Now let me address the whole issue about SM. Let's look at the statistics here. 99% of 5.5 million businesses employ less than 21 workers, which means that this exemption is rather the. This. This companies employ less than 21. Workers will not have to provide access because that's what the regulation says.

So the government has been clear that SMEs should not face disproportionate burdens under the statutory access framework. That is why the regulation provides. The CAC must refuse access where the employer has fewer than 21 workers, which means it's 5.5 businesses, million businesses in this country. The threshold aligns with existing statutory recognition framework, providing consistency across closely related areas of trade union law. I think the noble Lord Sharpe mentioned about double standards. Let me be absolutely clear. Again, the enforcement regime applies to trade unions, and the CAC can find both trade unions as well as businesses.

Businesses and trade unions are both subject to the same enforcement regime. And several noble Lords have also asked about consultation, concerns about proportionality, operational impact and the position of SMEs were among the most frequently raised issues throughout the consultation. These concerns were considered carefully and we made a number of changes to improve clarity, workability and the practical applicability of the framework. So the final code contains a stronger guidance as a result, I think the noble Lord Sharpe also asked about how can the CAC assess national security.

May I gently remind the noble Lord that CAC is an independent statutory regulator comprising of 45 members acting independently, and they will consider evidence, including from employers and unions, on national issues, security issues where relevant. Let me bring address the point that Lord Jackson mentioned about school support and social care to ensure the statutory right of access frameworks operates sufficiently and effectively alongside national bargaining framework like for adult social care and school support staff, we intend to introduce a targeted assessment from 2027 so that the size based threshold does not apply in these cases.

Let me address the issue that Lord Ashcombe asked on the consultation responses. In terms of consultation responses, many more businesses are likely to respond to this consultation than trade unions, because they are far more businesses than unions. Trade unions represent millions of workers when they represent to a consultation with a single response. My Lord, let me address the issue on access that I think Lord Goddard asked. My Lord, look, access takes place under an agreed arrangement or an agreement determined by the CAC.

The framework sets out where, when and how access may be exercised. Union officials may be required to comply with reasonable workplace instructions, identification requirements, safeguarding arrangements and health and safety procedures. The framework contains safeguards to ensure access is meaningful while taking account of operational requirements of the workplace. My Lords, look, these measures are intended to strike a fair and proportionate balance. They clarify how access should operate, encouraging employers and trade unions to resolve issues through discussions and regulation.

As we discussed earlier, the purpose of the framework is not is not simply to facilitate access, it is to support constructive industrial relations. That is why we have committed to reviewing the framework following implementation. My Lords, today's debate noble Lords have all reflected a regret motion by. Tabled by the noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Those concerns centred on the framework's impact on employers weekly access model and enforcement proportionate proportionality. I hope I have shown that those issues were carefully considered in developing the framework, and are reflected in the regulations and the code of practice, my Lords, I said earlier, as a Minister for small Business, I recognise the need to avoid disproportionately burdening the smallest employers.

The CAC must refuse statutory access from employers with fewer than 21 workers, as I said earlier. So, my Lords, I therefore hope the House will both support the regulation and the company Code of Practice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I beg to move. Yes. No. Minister sits down. May I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Minister sits down. May I ask him, given that he didn't respond to any of my requests for a respond to any of my requests for a response, will he respond by writing to the various points that I asked him to respond to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. Go through Hansard and definitely will write to him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

definitely will write to him. As ever, I'm very grateful to all who spoke in this relatively short but lively debate. I'm particularly grateful to the support for my motion from my
20:55
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
colleagues, my noble friends, and I'm also grateful to the noble Lord Goddard for asking some very good Goddard for asking some very good and very specific questions. As ever, I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his noble Lord, the Minister, for his efforts. I regret on his behalf the fact that he got no support at all fact that he got no support at all from his own benches, which I think is rather a shame. I got to say, in response to one of my specific response to one of my specific questions, that I don't believe the fact that the the Committee for Public Safety or whatever it's called, is independent, qualifies it to judge national security matters.

That's not really a justification for for for that power at all. I think the noble Lord, the Minister should should have another think about that and perhaps come back to me in writing, my Lords, I think and I've said it before, that these attempts to legislate the unions back into relevance in the private sector will ultimately fail. Having said that, I will now withdraw my regret motion, but I will reserve the right to say I told you so at some point in the future.

And I repeat, we will repeal all of the job killing measures in the Employment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rights Act of 2025. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw. Yeah. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn? The question is that the original motion be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Code of practice on the right of trade unions to access workplaces. Lord Leong move workplaces. Lord Leong move formally. The question is that the second motion in the name of Lord Leong be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content contrary not content.

The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg move to the. That the House do now adjourn.
14:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Abolition of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page