Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)]

I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment 152 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 153 and 154 by reason of pre-emption.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I have put my name to only two of the amendments in this group, Amendments 154 and 164. Quite honestly, it took a lot of time and energy to read through all of his amendments; it must have taken an astonishing amount of time to write them all, so I am in awe of the work that the noble Lord has put into this Bill.

I was slightly nervous about the noble Lord’s mention of growth. I would like to know more about that later, perhaps, because growth obviously has to be of the right kind.

For me, collective bargaining is a way of making the world of work fairer. There are those who are vulnerable or not as talented who cannot argue for themselves, so they need support to do that. In a healthy economy, there is no place for poverty or for ultra-low wages, where people cannot pay their bills, feed their children or buy new shoes if they need them. It is incredibly important that people have a good wage.

My noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle tabled an amendment to be discussed later in Committee for a 10:1 pay scale, such that you can pay your senior managers or CEO whatever you like, but you have to pay at least 1/10th of that amount to your cleaners, doormen or catering staff. The idea is that everybody needs a proper wage and, honestly, what would rich people do with even more money? They usually plough it not into the economy but into yachts and things like that.

I support almost every one of these amendments, and I am sorry that I have signed up to only two, but this is an incredibly important area. I hope the Government are able to shift a little on this and take advice from a very well-known lawyer who knows what he is talking about. We all want a fair world, and this is part of actually developing it.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, it will amaze the Committee to know that I do not support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This could be a golden moment—I do not want to spoil it before it happens—where the Minister and I are on the same page. We will hold our collective breath.

I will make a few points. It was helpful and genuinely interesting to hear the history, context and examples that the noble Lord gave in relation to collective bargaining, but the fundamental concern that we have is that we find it hard to see how many of those—he talked about zero-hour contracts, for example—really apply to public sector employees across our schools and academies.

Our sense is that, in a world in which the Secretary of State receives advice from the negotiating body—the SSSNB, although I noticed that in my amendment on the Marshalled List I cunningly dropped one of the S’s, which makes it easier to say—the principle that the Secretary of State retains discretion is a good principle to stick to. I think the noble Lord explained that there could be ways in which the Secretary of State could overrule, but I feel that that makes it unnecessarily complicated. Perhaps more importantly, it fundamentally changes the relationship between unions and employers, and risks—perhaps more than risks—creating a much more oppositional relationship, where trade unions on one side and local authorities and trusts on the other are directly opposing one another in these negotiations. I also question whether it is practical, given the nature of our schools landscape.

Can the Minister clarify a couple of points? Amendments 153, 159, 160, 162, 167 and 170—the amendments that would leave out “employment”—would make the clause broader, to cover staff who are under contract rather than under contract of employment. Our concern is that that could cover people such as casual exam invigilators, peripatetic music teachers or staff who are under contract to look after the grounds. I would be grateful if she could confirm that the remit of the Bill refers to “terms of employment” as we understand it to mean.

Amendments 155 to 158 say to leave out “or is not”. This relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to prescribe the SSSNB remit through regulations. As the Bill is currently drafted, the Secretary of State can say that something is or is not to be treated as remuneration or a term of employment. For example, at present it could be said by the Secretary of State that an honorarium payment is not to be treated as being within the SSSNB’s remit. Removing “or is not” would mean the Secretary of State would have to be very specific indeed about what is to be considered remuneration. The current wording allows enough specificity about what is—and, importantly, what is not—within the remit of the SSSNB. We would argue that it is very important that that wording remains as is to avoid unnecessary confusion, tension or debate on its scope.

--- Later in debate ---

I find Amendment 162 particularly problematic. By removing the words “of employment”, it dangerously broadens the scope of the negotiating body to include any person providing school support services, regardless of whether they have a formal employment contract. That risks pulling in a wide range of individuals who perform vastly different functions and hold very different responsibilities, from contractors and agency workers to temporary staff. Many will have no direct or ongoing relationship with the school as an employer. Including such a disparate group under one negotiating umbrella is therefore unworkable and unjustified. It ignores the fundamental differences in roles, terms and working arrangements that exist across these categories. These workers have different legal statuses, different contractual frameworks and different relationships with schools, and to force all of those under the same pay and conditions regime would inevitably create chaos, confusion and potential unfairness. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I ought to clarify my comments on yachts. I have had a yacht of my own, but it was 21 feet long and I was referring to yachts that are 200 to 400 feet long. Sorry about that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am desperately searching for the note in my folder on yachts. I may have to write to the noble Baroness on that issue later.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for his introduction to these amendments. As others have said, it was an interesting and important history of the progress that has been made in this country through a recognition of the strength of the collective voice of workers represented through the trade union movement, which is, of course, the basis of our party on this side of the House. Although I will not be able to go as far as my noble friend would want me to go in this, I hope I can reassure him that I think these proposals for the SSSNB make considerable progress in recognising the need for the voice of school support staff to be properly heard in bargaining about pay and conditions and improving the training and development options for those staff.

I know my noble friend Lord Hendy has had the opportunity to meet with my noble friend Lady Jones to talk about these principles. I hope he recognises, as I certainly do, the phenomenal work that she and other members of the team have done in this House in taking forward this piece of important legislation for the Government and the difference it is making to the rights of workers across this country. Those of us on this side of the House are proud of this piece of legislation and the work that has gone into it.

I can also reassure my noble friend that this Government support the work of the ILO, value its role in upholding and enhancing workers’ rights globally and remain committed to upholding international standards. In fact, the UK is in full compliance with all our international obligations on collective bargaining.

I turn to the SSSNB and the associated amendments in this group. I know my noble friend is here for the other elements of negotiating bodies that my noble friend Lord Hendy referenced, but first I shall speak to Amendments 152, 154 to 158, 161 and 173 to 179, which relate to collective bargaining, the role of the Secretary of State and concerns about the remit of the SSSNB.

The existing remit is broad. It covers the areas that will help to address the recruitment and retention challenges that state-funded schools are facing for support staff. As it is a negotiating body, employee and employer representatives will be able to meaningfully negotiate on pay and conditions as well as advise on training and career progression. As I spelt out in the previous group of amendments, this is a major step forward in the process for supporting our school support staff, who play such an important role in our schools.

As it is a statutory body, it is essential that agreements reached by the SSSNB can be imposed in contracts only through ratification by the Secretary of State, and that the interests of the Secretary of State are represented on the body with a non-voting representative. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that the current wording provides the appropriate specificity on the remit for this body, appropriately involving the Secretary of State in the statutory role of the body but making a major step forward in enabling employees and employer representatives to negotiate on those areas.

I turn to Amendments 153, 159, 160, 162, 167 and 170, which relate to those who work under a contract that is not a contract of employment—in other words, to the remit of the employees covered by this body. The vast majority of school support staff are employed by local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts as employees. The remit for employees is consistent with the approach taken in the 2009 legislation that first established the SSSNB and the current remit of the NJC. I hope that answers the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the definition. We are content that the policy intent of the SSSNB provisions is met through the current remit, so the amendments are not required. They would broaden those under the auspices of the SSSNB in a way that would distort its role and responsibility, and they would introduce the sort of complexity that other noble Lords have talked about.

The remainder of the amendments in this group—Amendments 163 to 166, 168, 169, 171 and 172—relate to the protection of more favourable terms in staff contracts. As drafted, the Bill does not require regulations ratifying agreements of the SSSNB to impose limits on the terms and conditions under which school support staff can be employed. The intention is for support staff in all state-funded schools in England to benefit from a core pay and conditions offer, while providing the flexibility to respond to local circumstances above minimum agreements reached, and with more favourable pay and conditions for individuals protected.

We are taking concerns about the protection of individuals and room for innovation seriously. We will be consulting on the remit of the SSSNB and calling for evidence on terms and conditions in the summer. I therefore have some sympathy with those who might express concerns about whether there is sufficient protection for individuals, and I hope we will be able to clarify that.

I will not be able to go as far as my noble friend Lord Hendy asks the Government to go in his amendments, but I hope he will recognise that, in line with the progress of the collective representation of workers that he identified in his speech, this development under this Government represents a considerable improvement in the position of our vital school support staff. I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am very happy to add my name to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, having worked for many years before she came to the House on domestic abuse issues.

Nobody would disagree with the Government having this priority to reduce violence against women and girls; it is a no-brainer, given where we are starting from. The examples in the workplace of things going wrong, often in plain sight, are embarrassing, and the list the noble Baroness put before us, which I will briefly repeat in part, demonstrates that it is just the tip of the iceberg.

When I was a head-hunter, for many years I specialised in HR—sometimes known as “human refuse” or “human remains”, but otherwise known as personnel—and Harrods was known as a revolving door for HR directors. Any personnel director who looked at an offer of employment from Mr Fayed—he actually was just Mr Mohamed Fayed; he added the “al” because it makes you sound posher in Egypt—and who had done their homework knew what they were in for. Even people who took a deep breath and, for a large amount of money, took on that role rarely lasted more than 12 months. It really was supping with the devil, and it was widely known, but nobody did anything about it.

The BBC has been mentioned, as well as the NHS. The fact that female employees, surgeons included, in the NHS have reported rape—both allegations of rape and actual rape—over many years is inconceivable in principle but is and has been taking place.

The case of Gracie Spinks was mentioned. I too had the privilege of listening to her father as he spoke of his anguish at the death of his daughter. That is an interesting example. The company where the person who killed her, and who then killed himself, worked, Xbite, had a grand total of 140 employees. So, as we think through how to deal with this, how can we help organisations such as that, which had started up only five years before, to understand the co-responsibilities they have with their employees to try to protect them in the working environment? But also, how do we make that practical and effective?

I was involved, with others, in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill which has just left your Lordships’ House. Part of the reason that the Government brought that in is precisely because of issues of abuse in the workplace. The well-known tragic case of Jaysley Beck, who took her own life after years of repeated harassment by, shamefully, a series of her superiors, is a case in point. The Ministry of Defence itself also has a major issue in this regard.

The fact is that, as many of us will know, many of us—some of us—will indeed have married, gone out with or, heaven forbid, had affairs with people that we have met through interactions at the workplace. The workplace, outside of the home, is a major cause and focus of social interaction between people, and most of us spend a significant part of our lives there. To expect that to exist in a separate bubble and compartment and not recognise the issues that can often be engendered and amplified by the intensity of a working environment is to ignore the obvious.

So, should we ignore this in this Bill? I think we all agree that this is an issue that needs to be tackled. I think we all agree that we need to do better, but I think we need to ask ourselves: is this the right vehicle by which to try and do something about it? I have come to the conclusion that the answer is probably yes, not least because of the timing of the Government’s current focus on reducing violence against women and girls. What is clear at the moment is that there is a real lack of clarity and guidance, and ownership and responsibility, on how to respond in these kinds of situations.

We have a tangle of different laws and regulations dating back as far as 1974, with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. We have the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. We have the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We have the remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We have the Health and Safety Executive, and we have the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 190. That is a complicated thicket to try and work your way through, and there are many inconsistencies in the way it is applied and an almost total lack of understanding by those employers who are perhaps trying to respond to some of the issues that their employees are raising as to how best to deal with it, because there is no clear path or clear outline of how to respond. Creating clarity in this area for both the victims and the employers is an opportunity we should not miss.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he/she and their colleagues will sit down with Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones to try and look at this in the round, because, in a way, it would fit in very neatly with some of the other laudable initiatives of the Government to reduce violence against women and girls. I ask the Front Benches: please can we work together, politics out of the window, to try and work out between now and Report whether there are ways we can try and pull all this together, give greater clarity and improve on the unacceptable status quo?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am speaking in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett, who is not able to be here today, and she has signed both of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes.

The noble Baroness made an excellent opening speech and has covered almost everything, but I think it is worth repeating that what we are trying to do here is provide workplaces that are safe, free from violence and free from gender-based harassment. As we heard during an Oral Question earlier, sexism and misogyny are on the rise in our society, and that impacts on women and girls—probably girls, particularly—of all ages. It is crucial that the Government take this seriously.

We are not asking employers to sit down and think what they have to do from scratch, because this research has been done before. There is an excellent project conducted by the Fawcett Society that identifies five key requirements to create a workplace that does not tolerate sexual harassment: culture, policy, training, reporting mechanisms and the way that employers respond to reports. Successful and lasting change needs sustained commitment, and the Fawcett Society shows the way forward—or a way forward. Of course, that, with a great deal of other existing research, is something that the Health and Safety Executive could draw on.

The size of the problem is probably indicated by research from Scotland; there is no reason to think that the issue there is larger than anywhere else on these islands. Last year, a study reported that 70% of women in Scotland reported having experienced or witnessed sexual harassment in the workplace and that 80% of those never reported it to their employer. Those are absolutely terrible statistics. I am sure that the Government want to do something about this, not least because lower-paid and younger workers are particularly vulnerable. This is something that the Government will surely want to address because there are an awful lot of votes out there from younger people and, at the next general election, this Labour Government might need them.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 101 in my name, in which I am joined, as we have heard, by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but also by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, who, of course, was the leader of the TUC, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, from the world of finance and business. Many people in this Committee are going to support some way of dealing with the misuse of non-disclosure agreements.

I make it clear that there is no suggestion here of banning NDAs generally. There is a role for NDAs—people leaving employment should not be able to take with them the secrets of the company or its client list, for example. What we are talking about is the misuse of non-disclosure agreements to silence complainants, particularly women complaining of sexual harassment and abusive conduct by employers, supervisors, the boss, fellow workers or the client of an employer. I remind the Committee that since NDAs came into existence, complainants have been coerced into signing such an agreement on bringing a complaint in the workplace. Often, it is a way of waving people out and into non-employment in that workplace.

I emphasise that the amendment would not ban all NDAs. It is not preventing the use of NDAs in such proper cases as I have mentioned. But if the complainant requests a non-disclosure agreement because that is what, let us say, she would like to have, the amendment requires that she be offered independent legal advice. I am very supportive of the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, that there be some way in which that might be funded, certainly in the corporate world, by the employer. We may be able to talk through in this Committee how provision might be made for the employee to be given that kind of independent advice, separate from the lawyers for the firm.

The independent advice has to involve advising on more than just a non-disclosure agreement but also on all the other alternatives that might be available to a worker who has experienced harassment, sexual harassment, abusive conduct or bullying. There has to be full consent if the exemption is going to work. In general, what we are calling for is that a non-disclosure agreement should not be used to silence complainants. I make that simple and clear. I cannot understand why that would be resisted by a progressive Government seeking to create good workplaces.

This amendment lists persons whom a worker may be allowed to speak to. I advised Zelda Perkins, who was just mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. She had signed a non-disclosure agreement all those many years ago relating to Harvey Weinstein, because of something that had been done not to her but to her coworker. She was encouraged to sign it and she and the coworker, who had been seriously abused, were ushered out of Miramax with a payment. They were in their early 20s at the time and accepted the settlement, knowing no better. In the years that followed, they often felt deeply regretful about the way in which that happened and that they were put in the hands of lawyers chosen by the employer. They signed non-disclosure agreements which said they could not speak to their doctor or to any lawyer or therapist, and that they could not take support from any other source.

That is why my Amendment 101 mentions the kind of people one ought to be allowed to turn to and confide in. People need to be able to do that. Non-disclosures should not prevent people taking support from a family member, spiritual counsellor, community elder or the many other people I have listed.

This amendment deals with one of the problems that takes place. The reason why Zelda Perkins eventually breached her non-disclosure agreement and spoke out—with great fear, because she thought she would then be sued by Miramax—was the public interest that arose at the time. She wanted to support the many other women who had stepped forward and were being disbelieved, because she could explain that she had been subjected to that kind of pressure when she was speaking to the abuse that had been experienced by her colleague at work. She ended up fearful and took legal advice because she was worried that she would be sued for speaking out.

That is why we are asking that non-disclosure agreements should not be misused in this way to silence women. I have had the experience over the last few years of chairing inquiries in a number of different circumstances. One of the shocking things that comes to light is the frequency with which non-disclosure agreements are used for this purpose and the number of times that these agreements are used basically to usher somebody out of the business. The person with power, who is more senior in the organisation, gets away with it and there is no way of remedying it.

Non-disclosure agreements and their misuse should be addressed in the Bill. I urge the Government to do so. I hope that, at the end of all this, we will be able to come together with the Government to find an amalgamation of the number of somewhat similar amendments here to really deliver justice for women in the workplace.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to several amendments in this group that I have signed, which are all very good.

Non-disclosure agreements can be exceptionally toxic and corrosive, because they can be used to cover up wrongdoing by an employer. It is a very dangerous game. They are not simply a contractual arrangement between two willing parties; the employer’s wrongdoing could affect other employees as well, so their effect is much wider than on the employee who is party to the agreement. I very much support Amendments 98 and 101, and I hope that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, says—we can find common agreement on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, did a very thorough skate-through of all of this, so I will mention only three of the amendments that I have signed.

I feel very strongly about this. Whistleblowers save public money and expose bad practice. They should be celebrated, yet they are treated as traitors by professions, public services and corporations. Amendment 147 would turn that around by placing a duty to investigate on those organisations. My own experience of a whistleblower was when a police officer came forward and told me about the domestic extremist database that I was on. Thousands of other people were on that database as well, including journalists, MPs—such as Caroline Lucas—and local councillors. There were all sorts of people on it, but the two things we all had in common were that none of us had committed a criminal act of any kind and that we had all said things that challenged the status quo. That was enough to get us on to that domestic extremist database.

I cannot imagine how much it cost. The police were tracking all of us and keeping details of what we were doing, such as when I spoke in Trafalgar Square or went on a cycle ride. All these things about me were kept on that database—what an absolute waste of police time and taxpayer money for pointless spying. I put everything out on social media, so they could have just followed me there. Ex-spy cop Peter Francis blew the whistle on how the special demonstration squad was spying on the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, when she and her husband were campaigning to get justice for their dead son.

Whistleblowers need reassurance that they will be taken seriously, and giving the company or organisation they work for a duty to investigate would provide that. It would also combine with the Government’s new duty of candour to help change the culture of many organisations. I know the Minister is keen to speed up the Bill’s progress, and I do not think that this side of the Chamber is helping in any way, but the current laws are outdated and inadequate, so rather than spending ages examining the whole subject, it would be good just to adopt the very modest Amendment 147.

Amendment 126 would ensure that those whistle-blowers left out by the existing framework finally receive legal protection. The last 25 years have seen a massive rise in self-employment and subcontracting. There are now many more people in workplaces who may spot wrongdoing or risks who have no legal remedy if they blow the whistle. The Post Office Horizon scandal saw hundreds of sub-postmasters wrongly accused and sometimes imprisoned for fraud and false accounting. Lots of people knew that the Horizon system was going wrong from very early on, but the sub-postmasters did not have the legal protection to blow the whistle.

This amendment also grants whistleblowers strong protection from blacklisting when applying for work. At present, only job applicants in the NHS are protected from discrimination as whistleblowers. We encourage those NHS workers to speak up because it saves lives, but we allow workers in the building industry to be blacklisted for raising health and safety concerns that would stop deaths on dangerous sites. Some of those in the building trade had to emigrate to find a job; this amendment would have helped protect them. I understand the Government saying that they need to consult first, but a lot of that legwork was carried out by the previous Government. It seems ridiculous not to publish that whistleblower framework immediately so that we can make change happen faster.

Amendment 281 seeks to make express provision for court discretion to void non-disclosure clauses in employment contracts. The growth of the use of non-disclosure agreements is a big concern. Recent allegations that gagging clauses contributed to the cover-up of decades of sexual abuse by former Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed have once again led to calls to ban them here in the UK. Last September, the BBC revealed that five women claimed that the billionaire Mohamed Al Fayed raped them while they were working at Harrods department store. We have already heard that, as others were, they were forced into signing an NDA to prevent their speaking out. These agreements, as I described them earlier, can be corrosive, toxic and immensely damaging to the individuals who sign them and then regret doing so.

This is a really important group. I hope the Minister can meet some of us to discuss a way forward to incorporate some of the sense of these amendments into the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

With Britain now an outlier—40th out of 43 OECD countries on paid parental leave—I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to Amendment 76. It simply calls for a proper review of the current situation, and for the Government to bring back proposals to Parliament to modernise Britain’s family leave policies, encourage and support the role of fathers in family life, encourage more career progression for women, and create more positive workplace cultures that support Britain’s long-term economic success.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127, 128 and 139, which I have signed, but all the amendments in this group have real value.

In my relatively long life, in which I have argued endlessly for human rights, I think there can be only one or two times when I have stood up and argued for men’s rights, because I feel they have plenty of them and they do their own arguing. But, of course, this is a human rights issue. It is not just men’s rights; it is women’s rights as well, because the mothers will benefit if the fathers have parental leave.

Statutory paternity leave does not support families only in their first weeks; it helps rebalance society by moving away from a statutory parental leave system, which sends a strong message that parenting is a woman’s job and that men should keep working and stay out of the home. That idea is not just present in the legislation; it is embedded and deeply rooted in many people’s prejudices. Maternity leave is already a very hard-fought and essential right, but the imbalance between maternity and paternity leave is structurally embedding gender differences that do not benefit society.

This legislation can set young families up for a stronger start by ensuring that new fathers have plenty of paid time off work in those early weeks and months that are so crucial to a child’s development. I hope the Prime Minister was listening to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and that he will perhaps urge this House to adopt at least some of these amendments.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendments 127 and 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I rise as one of, I think, only two fathers in this debate so far and, as it happens, a recent grandfather. I thought it would be helpful to have a little bit of balance in a discussion on a group of amendments which is about what appears to be an imbalance in the respective roles of fathers and mothers.

It seems to me that there are three key reasons to act, rather than to think and debate and dance on the head of an ever-smaller pin. The first is the early years argument. I, together with other noble Lords and noble Baronesses, will be arguing the case for early years being included and very deeply thought about in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Education yesterday said that early years was her number one priority. It is inarguable that changing our approach to paternity pay and giving fathers the opportunity to have a much greater presence in the lives of their children in the early years—and also, very importantly, in support of their partner or spouse, particularly if she is working or is attempting to work—is frankly a no-brainer. In that context, that is a very good first reason.

The second reason is that the economic arguments for this are also very strong. The report by the Joseph Roundtree Foundation, which came out only three weeks ago, and which was mentioned by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is fairly convincing. It says:

“Building on the evidence from other countries on the impact of paternity leave, the”


Centre for Progressive Policy—one would imagine that His Majesty’s Government would be in favour of an institute with a name like that—

“has modelled the economic costs and benefits of more generous paternity leave options. This novel model was built to help policy-makers understand the labour market effects – and associated economic and tax costs – of varying paternity leave terms in the UK”.

Its conclusions were very simple:

“The modelling shows a positive economy-wide effect of £2.68 billion, driven by the gains achieved when more women move into work and work more hours”.


The second bullet point is particularly apposite to the Government’s aims and what they are trying to achieve with the Bill:

“The modelling also shows that the increase in labour market outputs for this policy option is mainly driven by those at the bottom and middle of the labour market”.


That is a policy outcome you would think was very close to the Government’s heart.

Turning to the third and final reason, for 31 years I was a professional headhunter and, as a headhunter, you become relatively expert in what I might call the psychology of attraction and repulsion—what attracts people to particular types of employment or employer, and what detracts from that degree of attraction. There is increasing evidence to show that companies that are thoughtful, progressive and transparent about the offering they are making to both fathers and mothers stand a much better chance in this labour market of attracting people of real talent who have many choices they could follow up on. Also, relating back to comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in a previous group, an important issue is that many individuals have a degree of trepidation about working for potential employers because they are uncertain of the working environment and how it might impact on their ability to play a full part in family life.

For those three key reasons, I support not only having a long hard look at paternity leave—as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said, frankly, we have been looking at it for longer than is either necessary or good for us—but, for the good of families and children, just getting on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have had confirmation from my side that the usual channels have agreed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his explanation.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Stop groaning.

Normally, if today’s list says, “at a convenient time”, that means at the end of a group surely.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

As I said, I understand that this is unusual, but it is in no way unprecedented. We have broken in the middle of a group before. It is not ideal, but we are where we are. I think it is in the best interests of the Committee, especially as it has been agreed through the usual channels, to hear from both Front Benches and any other Back-Benchers on this group in good time, and to hear, in the meantime, a repeat of the Statement from the Minister, so that everybody gets the best of all worlds. I know this is not usual practice, and we will endeavour not to do it on future Committee days.

Steel Industry

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I would love to support the Government wholeheartedly on this Bill. From wind turbines to trains, steel will be needed for the transition to a green economy. However, this Bill contains huge powers for the Secretary of State and no sunset clauses. That is always going to be a source of problems.

I am worried that this is the same old story of taxpayer money paying for private profits and private sector failure. We have seen it with the water industry, where bill payers are taking the hit for billions of pounds in share dividend payments, and a third of my own water bill goes on paying debt. We saw it with the steel mill in Port Talbot, which was a missed opportunity that still grieves many people in Wales. We saw it with the collapse of Carillion, the private sector company that existed on public sector contracts. It paid out higher and higher dividends for 16 years. The owners fleeced it and left the pension fund half a billion pounds short—and, of course, cost the taxpayer £148 million.

Instead of the Government doing the obvious thing and taking over these failing companies, they should be bringing them into public ownership so that we can run them better and bring down bills. We keep throwing bill payers’ money at them and expecting a different result. No Government should allow key infrastructure to fall into foreign private investors’ hands in the first place; the minute it is not profitable, they pull out, with no recourse.

I have a few questions for the Minister. What is the Government’s model for ownership? If we put £500 million into keeping this plant going, what are we getting back? Are we getting shares in the company? Are we getting worker representatives put on to the board? Are we getting guarantees that the steel plant will be handed over to the public sector?

The Minister said in her opening remarks that all options are under review, yet one constantly gets the feeling that, for this Labour Government, nationalisation is something that spooks them quite badly. I would like to know if nationalisation is one of the options under review.

What is the timetable for shifting the Scunthorpe blast furnaces from coal to green hydrogen? We have an increasing number of days when our wind farms and solar panels are producing more renewable energy than the national grid needs. Instead of closing things down on those days—when renewables cost us nothing—why do we not use that free energy to produce hydrogen?

We must not leave the future of steel communities and steel-workers to the whims of multinational companies or bullies in the White House. These communities deserve better. Green steel in public ownership is the way to ensure that these communities not only survive but thrive into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord—he was speaking more quickly than I can write. I will endeavour to respond to the points that I have not been able to respond to so far.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down again, I made a specific point about whether nationalisation was one of the options on the table under review.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I make it clear that nothing is off the table. All options will be considered. I have also made it clear that this Bill is not about nationalising steel. If we need to take any further steps, we will obviously have to come back to the House with further proposals.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I welcome our four new colleagues after their excellent speeches, and I look forward to their future contributions.

Obviously, I agree with everything my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle said earlier. Surprisingly enough, we support this Bill in its general purpose, because we like that it is making fairness at work a priority. Well done to the trade unions for making sure this never slipped off the public agenda.

At the moment, we have a divided and very unequal society, and the Bill will help to restore a bit of balance in the workspace. Without that balance in power, we will forever have working-class people going to food banks and claiming universal credit because their paid work does not give them a living wage or job security.

We have a two-tier economy. The rich have been getting richer much faster, while the rest of us are stuck or going backwards. These two facts are obviously linked. Last year, the collective wealth of the UK’s small band of billionaires increased by about £35 million a day. Meanwhile, according to the IFS, the past 15 years have been the worst for income growth in generations.

Like many, I was appalled by the Spring Statement. It means that the situation I just described will get much worse. We will support the changes that Labour are putting forward, but it is nowhere near enough to really change things and make the majority of people better off.

In your Lordships’ House, we all have the duty to fill the gaps in the Bill to make it work for everyone in society, but especially the poorest. To do that, we have to end the rip-off by privatised services, such as the water industry and energy suppliers. We need rent controls and more social housing. We need a wealth tax and a more equal society.

One of our amendments, for example, will be to introduce a maximum 10:1 pay ratio, so that no worker will see their CEO getting paid more in a day than they do in an entire year—the point being, you can pay your CEO whatever you like, as long as the cleaner gets 10% of that. Plus, if we want more productivity in this country then staff must be valued. If we want to lower the tax burden, we must end the corruption that comes with privatised procurement contracts and services. Of course, we have to protect whistleblowers and SMEs.

A surprising amount of this Bill could have been taken straight from the Green Party election manifesto—loads of very common-sense ideas. I congratulate the Labour Party on casting an eye over what we said—for example, a fair deal for those working in adult social care, enhanced rights from day one, quality auditing, and sick pay.

The Employment Rights Bill could turn the tide on the undermining of employment rights that has taken place since the 1980s. It is time to recognise that stronger collective bargaining rights and better working conditions can be good for workers and businesses. But the Bill is not complete. The Government clearly need some help in further drafting, and this House is the perfect place to do that.

Whistleblowers

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right, but we have already noted the concerns about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. We share his concern, because they are being used to silence whistleblowers and cover up sexual harassment and discrimination. I stress that there are existing legal limits to how NDAs can be used in an employment context, which means they are void and unenforceable in certain circumstances. The use of NDAs is not something we would support and, if there were ways of limiting it, we would do so.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, is it possible to ensure with legislation that any company that victimises whistleblowers or trade union members could be banned from taking any public sector work in future?

Biocidal Products: Hand and Body Washes

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about education. We have already established that we need to keep the regulatory framework on these products under review, particularly with regard to new threats and hazards that might occur from them. That is why we have introduced the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will give the Government much more flexibility to look at these new products in future. But, yes, there is a huge job of education to be done about such products, and I thank the noble Baroness for her point.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, is it worth the Minister checking with advisers whether they have actually read Dr Fady’s research and are taking that into account?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I hope that they have, because I asked them to look at it—so let us assume that they have done. This is a fast-moving area. We have a Private Member’s Bill coming up, and we will obviously look again at the science behind all this. With any new science coming forward, obviously we want to welcome any new evidence. We are very aware that we need to keep people safe. As I said originally, not only is it about the safety of the individual but if we allow antimicrobial resistance to develop, everybody will be affected—and it will have an adverse effect on all human beings.

Watchdogs (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, on his opening speech, which was very good, and also congratulate his committee on this report, which was extremely interesting. If Who Watches the Watchdogs? is to have an impact, we in your Lordships’ House have a responsibility to hold those watchdogs to account.

The report highlights a lot of challenges, but the key challenge for the new Government is to ensure that real change actually happens. It is very easy—well, perhaps not easy—to produce a report, and we produce reports and they are then often ignored. As the Institute for Government says about the infected blood scandal:

“Past inquiries, including the high-profile Mid Staffs inquiry, have put forward similar recommendations on culture, candour and patient safety. These have not, however, resulted in change.”


We have 90 watchdogs, a library full of regulations, and all supported by some very high-level civil servants, probably drawn from our best public schools. It is a puzzle as to why we have had Grenfell, infected blood, sub-postmaster prosecutions, Hillsborough and the PPE contract scandals. It seems that here in this country, ordinary people can die but those responsible never get jail time. Ordinary people can lose everything but will have to wait decades for compensation, while the CEOs enjoy bonus payments and retirement cheques, and never have to worry about paying any money back. It seems that ordinary people take pay cuts for years but the profits for energy companies stay excessively high. Why do the shareholders of water companies get billions in dividends while those of us paying the bills pay the interest on their debts?

If noble Lords want to know why Britain has more billionaires than ever before but collapsing public services, it is because many modern fortunes have been built on regulatory capture, privatised services, and a system of corruption designed to separate taxpayers and bill payers from their money.

I was shocked to discover today that water companies have a duty to not pay shareholder dividends if that stops them delivering improvements and doing their jobs. What has Ofwat being doing for the last few decades? Why do this Government think that this is going to suddenly change if they leave Ofwat in charge?

This report examines the many and varied reasons why watchdogs are failing, but I want to focus on two that the proposed watchdog of the watchdogs is seeking to address. First, there is regulatory capture. The water industry is riven with revolving doors, as Ofwat is joined by water company bosses and water companies co-opt ex-Ofwat chiefs. The deals are arranged between an overstretched Environment Agency and water companies to keep the industry solvent. Is the Environment Agency captured by business interests rather than doing its job to protect the environment?

This weekend, I visited Lake Windermere to see the well-publicised problem of pollution there, and I heard some distressing reports. On the August bank holiday in 2022—when, as you can imagine, a lot of holidaymakers were making their way to Lake Windermere—around the lake, six miles of blue-green algae were clearly visible in the north basin. World Health Organization limits were breached, yet the Environment Agency issued no warning because of “reputational risk”. On 15 May 2024, United Utilities spilled 10 million litres of untreated sewage into the lake in an eight-hour period. Again, the Environment Agency response was inadequate.

I argue that within the definition of “national park” there should be a high standard for the water in that park, which does not happen at the moment, and that should prevent sewage dumps and other pollution. Lake Windermere could be a pilot for that idea.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry report points out the problem that successive Governments have failed. It seems that the cutting of red tape was done with a carelessness that is absolutely incredible. Regulations can be influenced by the power of money. Private developers accounted for around a third of donations to the Conservative Party for about a decade, and lobbying by developers and the construction industry undoubtedly played a part in the shameful Grenfell cladding scandal and the deaths of residents.

I say to the Minister opposite and to the new Government: please listen to other voices. If you hold a meeting with the water companies, meet Feargal Sharkey to get a counterview. If you meet Post Office bosses to discuss compensation for sub-postmasters, please also meet Mr Bates. If you get a Civil Service briefing on a scandal such as infected blood, personally check what the victims have to say. You have to listen to other voices. It will not make for an easier life but it will make for wiser decisions.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this scandal is rightly recognised as one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in the history of the English legal system. It seems so obvious now because so much has been reported, but for years hundreds of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were labelled as dishonest and convicted of dishonesty offences when they were telling the truth. One of the most fundamental elements of our justice system is that it is supposed to ensure that innocent people are found innocent because, if innocent people are at risk of being found guilty, trust in our justice system will disappear. In that light, exceptional steps are needed to put these injustices right, and although the Bill proposes a novel and controversial constitutional innovation, it is being done in aid of the powerless against the powerful and therefore, despite quite strong misgivings, I feel it is justified.

To talk about this Bill setting a precedent is to overgeneralise the circumstances of the Horizon scandal. We are not talking about overturning one or two questionable cases: we are talking about rectifying what has been revealed as an industrial enterprise to maliciously prosecute hundreds of innocent people. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made the point about how all should be exonerated. That is absolutely right; it is not enough to create, again, two tiers of those people who were so badly treated. If such a wholescale injustice does take place again, victims and the wider public can be assured that Parliament will intervene on behalf of the powerless against the powerful to secure justice, but let us all hope this is the first and last time that this unprecedented legislation is ever justified.

There is a grey cloud hanging over this Bill: to have real justice, Fujitsu’s role should be thoroughly investigated and prosecutions should start. As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said, it is wrong to wait until the end of the inquiry, because we already know that Fujitsu was guilty of many infractions. It was aware of the problems from the start. It was aware of its employees having remote access and, in 2009, Computer Weekly made it aware of the link between the glitches in the Horizon system and the prosecution of sub-postmasters. The chief executive of Fujitsu at the time, Roger Gilbert, said that Computer Weekly was not a publication to which he subscribed, so he clearly could not know anything about it. His press office was scandalously lax.

Fujitsu is still a major government contractor which gives money to the Conservative Party. It has numerous other government contracts and, for ideological reasons, the Government have been outsourcing all their IT expertise—exactly as the Post Office does. The next Government need to reverse this process and take that expertise back in house, or at least employ enough in-house expertise to know when a company is getting it wrong, hiding the truth or providing a service that is a complete liability and security risk. If you let major corporations run your Government, taxpayers will be ripped off and find that they are paying out millions when things go wrong.

I have two final points. First, Fujitsu should be in the dock and prosecutions should already have begun. Secondly, Fujitsu should pay the costs back to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, not us taxpayers.