Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I will speak to the significant number of amendments in this group in my name. This is quite an interesting cornucopia of amendments, a number of which are, in essence, probing amendments. The very nature of the work we are undertaking is to look at the minutiae of the Bill and to see it through the prism of how it impacts on small businesses. It is very important, when we consider the fair work agency’s powers, that we look at the Bill’s real-world ramifications and consequences.

Although some of the amendments may seem somewhat obscure, I think they are nevertheless quite compelling and worthy of the Minister’s attention. In addition, the Clause 95 stand part notice is in my name; I will come to that shortly. I also have a more substantive amendment near the end of the group on a duty on the UK border agency and the new enforcement agency, the fair work agency, to collaborate or co-operate.

I begin by considering the clause stand part notice. I remind noble Lords that, ostensibly, Clause 95 circumscribes the powers available in respect of using a warrant to enter a dwelling. On the face of it, the clause looks pretty innocuous, but I do not think it should be in the Bill because its wording is quite loose and opaque. I have serious concerns about the use of permissive, wide-ranging powers, particularly in subsection (3)(b), which says

“that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the documents or equipment”.

Further, paragraph (d) says

“that the purpose of entry may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless an enforcement officer arriving at the dwelling can secure immediate entry to it”.

I would like to interrogate the Minister’s perception and interpretation of these powers. For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the question of whether this clause should stand part of the Bill is worthy of our consideration. Although, of course, it was not considered by the statutory instruments committee—the name of which escapes me—to be a particularly egregious example of permissive or Henry VIII powers, I nevertheless think that it could be misconstrued.

I will now consider the other amendments in my name. Amendment 273A would require the Secretary of State to have “an evidential basis” for believing that a labour market offence is being or has been committed in order to request an LME undertaking, as opposed to requiring merely that the Secretary of State “believes” this to be the case. This amendment is important because what I am attempting to define more clearly the limits of the powers being conferred—in other words, to make it explicit that there has to be a firm evidential basis for exercising those powers. We do not want a situation in which the Secretary of State may do as he wishes as long as he pleads that he believed an offence was being committed.

I am not a lawyer, but I make reference to powers being conferred on a Minister based on subjective jurisdictional criteria. Let us look at—I am sure that the Minister will be advised of this—Customs and Excise Commissioners v Cure & Deeley Ltd 1962, in which it was found that Parliament would never presume on courts adopting a particular approach to statutory construction, especially when it comes to the subtleties of administrative law. I think that this reasonable and rational amendment would tighten up the wording.

Moving on, Amendment 273B would mean that the Secretary of State could impose a prohibition, restriction or requirement as an LME undertaking only where they considered it “proportionate” as well as “just and reasonable”. The test of proportionality is, of course, at the heart of adjudication and the justice system; it is the bread and butter of administrative decision-making, especially in respect of our human rights regime. It is good practice to have statute clear in order to direct Ministers to undertake the kind of judgments which the legal framework will impose on them anyway, and which otherwise will have to be communicated by the production of additional guidance material. That is the basis for that amendment.

Amendment 273C would reduce the maximum period for which an LME measure can have effect from two years to one year. This is a practical amendment, because there is no obvious reason why any necessary measures cannot be imposed and changes expedited within 12 months. It is better, for one thing, that a business falling foul of standards should be made to get its house in order quickly and to be compliant with any LME measure within a reasonable space of time. We are talking not about a month but about 12 months; I think that is a reasonable reduction from two years. It is also better for the economy, public expenditure and Civil Service efficiency to have a shorter timescale.

Amendment 273 would require the Secretary of State to bring the end of the LME measures to the attention of “all” other persons likely to be interested in the matter, rather than “any” such persons, and the subject of the measures. This is clearly straightforward. If you are in a business, you will have multiple partners, directors or people with a significant interest in the business. Therefore, to avoid bureaucratic mistakes and errors, I think it is fair to involve as many people as practicable.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. I am trying to follow the noble Lord’s arguments, but I think Amendment 273 is in a different group.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to clarify where I am: it is Amendment 273D. My apologies if I have not been clear enough.

This amendment would make a small clarifying adjustment: where the text currently says that the Secretary of State must take whatever steps she or he considers appropriate to bring the end of LME measures to the attention of

“any other persons likely to be interested in the matter”—

that is, other than the subject of the measures—it would use the words “all other persons”. It is important for business certainty, good faith and, indeed, fairness that all those who are affected or likely to be affected by a quite significant measure are kept properly informed about it. Otherwise, we may see messy episodes unfold where there is a misunderstanding or extra, hidden penalties imposed on businesses in the form of the costs of informing the other people affected by the LME measure that it has, for instance, come to an end.

Amendment 273E to Clause 119 would require notice of LMEs against a partnership to be given to “all partners”, rather than just “any partner”. This does not reflect what running a business with multiple partners is like, perhaps in multiple locations or running multiple business units as partners, whether it is an accountancy firm, solicitors or others—I know that there is a different regime for solicitors. It is not sensible to advise only one partner of a significant infraction or issue arising from an LME. If you want businesses to co-operate in ameliorating the issues identified in the LME, you would really need—I admit, at some modest cost—to advise all the partners. You need also to cultivate good faith in order to make the changes necessary arising from the LME.

Furthermore, it is possible that the courts will decide that notice has been given as a matter of law in circumstances where the one partner who was theoretically served it had not actually seen it and was not subjectively aware of it. Better, then, to require that all partners be given notice to ensure that businesses are genuinely aware of the ramifications and the LME decisions.

I am mindful of the time, so I will move with greater alacrity. Amendment 273F would increase the proposed burden of proof for court orders of LME measures from balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. There is reason to fear that a future Government will use the provision of Clause 117(3), which empowers the Secretary of State to create new kinds of LME measures by regulation, to create measures which go beyond regulation and become punitive, in which case the criminal proof standard will be appropriate. More generally, good faith between businesses and government, which aids compliance, will be better cultivated if they are required to comply with LME measures only in cases where there has been a clear violation.

--- Later in debate ---

Currently, enforcement efforts can be fragmented, with different bodies holding pieces of the puzzle but lacking a clear statutory framework compelling them to share intelligence swiftly and effectively. This fragmentation risks allowing individuals who breach immigration laws or pose security risks simply to slip through the cracks. This amendment would address this gap by creating a clear legal duty for a single labour market enforcement body to co-operate with key agencies such as the National Crime Agency, the Security Service, HM Coastguard and others. It would ensure that where there is reasonable suspicion of immigration violations or criminality, vital information is shared promptly, supporting a unified approach to border security. In a climate where we face increasing pressure on our borders, rising illegal entries and complex criminal networks exploiting immigration loopholes, I believe that my noble friend’s amendment would strengthen our ability to protect the integrity of the UK’s borders, uphold the rule of law and keep our communities safe. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment and the others, and we look forward to her response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords I thank noble Lords who have spoken. I am responding to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who have tabled amendments on the powers of the fair work agency and oppose Clauses 95 and 134.

I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that some of his amendments are probing amendments. I will attempt to respond to each in turn. Forgive me if I repeat some points that my noble friend Lord Katz made in the previous debate, which covered similar ground. I think we covered some of this ground in debates on a previous day. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I have no need to justify the unjustifiable in my response.

I will speak first to the fair work agency’s investigatory powers and address the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to Clause 95. I listened to the noble Lord, but investigatory powers are common to all regulators. The fair work agency’s powers are based on those set out for existing enforcement bodies in the Employment Agencies Act 1973, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. Employment rights enforcement agencies have had power to enter premises used as dwellings since their inception. For example, HMRC’s minimum wage inspectors can and do regularly visit business premises used as dwellings to gather evidence. It is right that officers should be able to gather evidence from such premises. Businesses operating from premises used as dwellings is nothing new. Pubs, for example, often have flats above the public area where the business’s documentation is kept.

Today, more and more businesses operate from home. Current law makes no distinction for dwellings. This Government believe in stronger safeguards for such powers. That is why Clause 95 introduces a new requirement for a warrant to enter dwellings. Together with the additional safeguards in Clause 128 and Schedule 8, this clause strikes the right balance between protecting the privacy and rights of individuals and allowing the fair work agency to go about its job of enforcing labour market legislation. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords on this point, and that noble Lords can agree that Clause 95 should stand part of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, also addressed his amendments to Clause 128. I recognise the intent behind these amendments, but there are already extensive safeguards around the use of investigatory powers in Part 5, including the new requirement for a warrant when entering a dwelling. Clause 128 is a sensible provision that sets out that any enforcement officer has the right to execute a warrant and, as long as the enforcement officer is present, they can be accompanied by an authorised person or persons if they deem it relevant to the investigation—for example, an IT specialist.

Turning to Amendment 271ZC from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, enforcement of holiday pay is a key part of the fair work agency’s remit. Large numbers of workers are missing out on their statutory right to paid annual leave. The Trade Union Congress estimates that 2 million people lose around £3 billion per year by not receiving holiday pay to which they are entitled. We recognise that this disproportionately affects the lowest-paid workers. The fair work agency will not be able to meaningfully support workers to recover the holiday pay they are owed if it cannot issue notices of underpayment. This is a power that is already available in the national minimum wage enforcement regime, which has been successful in ensuring that workers receive the arrears that they are owed. Therefore, I must respectfully resist this amendment.

I turn now to the amendments to Clauses 116 to 121 inclusive, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, together with the amendments to Clauses 126 and 136. These pertain to the labour market enforcement undertakings and orders regime. Although these amendments touch on important aspects of the Bill, they either duplicate existing provisions and introduce unnecessary complexity, or risk undermining the careful balance that has already been struck in the drafting. The labour market enforcement regime was introduced by the 2015 to 2017 Conservative Government. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, at that time in the other place, voted in favour of this regime consistently during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016.

It is a regime that works and works well. It promotes a compliance-first approach, as employers are first encouraged to enter into voluntary undertakings to correct their behaviour. Only persistent or egregious offenders are issued with a compulsory order to stop. As of March 2024, there have been 140 labour market enforcement undertakings and just 14 labour market enforcement orders. These amendments seek to water down the regime and increase legal tests and administrative burdens for its use. By making the labour market enforcement regime more cumbersome and less effective, the fair work agency would have to resort more often to prosecution, which could be disproportionate and time-consuming for all concerned. The effects of these amendments would be to make enforcement more heavy-handed, less efficient and less focused on helping businesses to comply. This is not what businesses or workers want or need, and it is not what the fair work agency is about.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I hear what the Minister says, but surely she would agree that, if one looks at Amendment 273F, which moves from having “a balance of probabilities” to “beyond reasonable doubt”, if you are taking forward an LME infraction case beyond reasonable doubt, you are more likely to succeed, and the corollary of that is that you are not taking forward cases on which you have a paucity of evidence. So, with all due respect to the noble Baroness, I disagree. If you are bringing in proportionality and “beyond reasonable doubt”, you are going to have sharper cases that tackle the most egregious examples of infractions of the legislation and do not waste a lot of time—and consequently save the taxpayer money.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The evidence shows that the current wording is proportionate. There has not been a huge number of cases. Maybe we could argue about whether there should be more cases, but the fact that there has not been a huge number of cases is a reflection of that. What we do not want to do is set the barrier so high that we cannot take the cases that are necessary to deliver the changes and the better worker protection that we seek to achieve.

I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 273N. I agree that effective sharing of information and pooling of knowledge will be crucial to the success of the fair work agency. The list of bodies that the agency will be able to share information with is limited to those with a need for access, and safeguards are provided for. However, the power to update the list is necessary to ensure that the fair work agency can respond to future changes in the wider labour market and the regulatory landscape. It means that we can keep the list of bodies under review and remove bodies where the need to share information no longer applies. This is good data information governance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about the Low Pay Commission being listed. The fair work agency will be able to share information with the bodies in Schedule 9 if it is for the purposes of a function of the body. This does not need to be about the enforcement functions. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed no concern with this power in its report on the Bill.

On the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to Clause 134, HMRC data is critical for investigating and enforcing various employment rights, not just the national minimum wage. However, I say to the noble Baroness that much of HMRC’s data is confidential, and it is therefore prudent to require an extra level of approval before this information is shared further.

Clause 134 restricts the sharing of confidential HMRC data without authorisation from HMRC commissioners. This will ensure that the fair work agency operates in line with the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act. This is a standard safeguard which is necessary to ensure responsible data sharing between HMRC and the fair work agency.

In relation to Amendment 273PB from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I reassure him that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State the power to share information with border authorities, such as the National Crime Agency and immigration officers. Rather than enhancing enforcement, the amendment risks introducing unnecessary complexity and diverting attention away from the fair work agency’s core task. The amendment’s intended effect can be achieved through the existing Bill drafting.

I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 273R to Clause 140. The ability to recover enforcement costs in relation to the time spent is a matter of fairness. Restricting the use of hourly rates would in practice force the fair work agency to adopt fixed fees. A fixed approach to cost recovery could mean that a small business ended up paying the same as a much larger organisation, regardless of the scale or complexity of the case, and that is not fair. This clause is an enabling power. Regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Parliament will be able to scrutinise and debate whether to adopt a fixed-fee or variable-fee regime at the point where the regime is proposed, and it is right that we afford that flexibility in design at this stage.

In conclusion, while I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, they either replicate what is already achieved by the Bill’s existing provisions or risk unsettling a framework that has already been carefully constructed. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, not to press Amendment 271ZC.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive canter through my amendments. I defer to the poetic licence of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and accept that it is not a cornucopia, but my cup overfloweth nevertheless.

I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments were received. I was attempting to improve the Bill. Not for the first time, my noble friend Lord Hunt put it much more succinctly than I did in that, certainly with regard to proportionality and “beyond reasonable doubt”, notwithstanding the excellent drafting by officials, the amendments would have improved the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

271A: Clause 111, page 123, line 40, after “sheriff” insert “or a summary sheriff”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable an application for an order enforcing a requirement in a notice of underpayment to pay a sum to an individual to be made in Scotland to a summary sheriff (as well as to a sheriff).

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, we must not ignore the broader context. As has been noted throughout Committee, the employment tribunals are already under considerable strain. Adding further cases, particularly where the worker has chosen not to act, risks delaying justice to those with legitimate pressing claims they wish to pursue in their own name. I must therefore question whether this extraordinary Clause 113 is necessary at all and whether its costs and consequences truly serve the public good. I urge the Government to withdraw or, at best, seriously reconsider the clause.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by saying what a pleasure it was to be chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who is celebrating 55 years of public service today. I congratulate her.

Back to the not-so-inspiring business: I am responding to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, on his amendments relating to civil proceedings and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for giving notice of their opposition to Clause 113. The Government are committed to ensuring a fair playing field for all employees and businesses. This includes enabling the fair work agency to challenge breaches of employment rights and labour abuse where individuals may not be able to pursue this for themselves or where these cases are not suitable for other enforcement routes.

I am sorry to hear that some noble Lords cannot envisage the circumstance in which these powers might be necessary but, as we rehearsed on a previous group of amendments, many vulnerable workers, especially migrant workers, are reluctant or unable to bring their case to the tribunal to enforce their employment rights. Rogue employers exploit this, break employment law and get away with it. That is unfair for the majority of businesses that do right by their staff. It is unfair for the vulnerable workers involved in being denied their rights. It is unfair for British workers who are denied work opportunities due to illegal practices undercutting them. That is why, in the plan to make work pay, which was a manifesto commitment, we set out that the fair work agency will have the power to bring civil proceedings to uphold employment rights. This is why the Secretary of State will have the power to bring proceedings in place of a worker. It will mean that all employers are held to the same standards.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that these provisions on civil proceedings are modelled on the Equality Act 2006, which allows the Equality and Human Rights Commission to institute legal proceedings that are connected to the commission’s functions. This includes bringing proceedings for breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and assisting individuals who are party to proceedings related to the Equality Act 2010.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

If the noble Lord lets me finish this point, I may answer his question.

The Employment and Human Rights Commission does not need consent for this and has issued proceedings in its own name before. When acting as an intervenor, the EHRC has also previously received court approval to take over conduct of an appeal on behalf of an appellant when the appellant decided to withdraw from the legal proceedings. This was done with the consent of the Supreme Court in the case of MS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. I give way.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for reaching the end of that paragraph. She agrees that the power for the EHRC to intervene in proceedings is not a power to take over and institute proceedings if people do not want to. Instead, it is a power to intervene and carry on proceedings in the event that somebody wants to withdraw. That is not based on any statutory provision; this is still extremely novel. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is no statutory precedent for the kind of power that the Government want to take in Clause 113.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As the noble Lord has more legal expertise than me, I am happy to write to him on that point because it is an important point that we need to clarify. Of course, these are relatively new powers that we are taking on board, and we are taking them for very good reasons. I am sorry that noble Lords opposite do not see the case for this, because, certainly, an awful lot of workers are being exploited out there. At the moment, they do not have the power to speak for themselves in the way that many others who are better informed can do.

While I respect the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, behind some of his amendments, I must state they are unnecessary. Some of the provisions of the amendments are already provided for, either within the existing drafting of the specific clauses or in other clauses of the Bill. Regarding Amendments 271D, 272ZZA and 272ZZD, as I mentioned on Monday, normal practice would be for the Secretary of State to bring proceedings with a worker’s consent and involvement. However, in the worst cases of serious exploitation and intimidation, workers may fear the repercussions that they may face from their employer should they be de-anonymised. By allowing the Secretary of State to take a case forward without consent, it would be harder for employers to attribute blame to individual employees. Therefore, limiting this power in the way that these amendments seek to do could prevent the Secretary of State pursuing serious breaches in some of the most egregious cases.

Amendment 272ZZB is an unnecessary amendment. Legally privileged material and confidential information is already protected under the Data Protection Act, as well as under usual legal rules and principles that apply to proceedings.

On Amendment 272ZZC, normal public law principles already take account of all considerations referenced in this amendment, including the best interests of a worker. This is therefore another unnecessary amendment.

Amendment 272ZZE is yet another unnecessary amendment. Clause 113(6) does not provide a blanket exclusion from all liability, and it is self-evident that the Secretary of State would be held accountable if they undertook actions that were unlawful. This is a basic principle of the rule of law.

On Amendment 272ZC, it is clearly in the interests of enforcement authorities and all parties that the most effective and proportionate means of enforcement is chosen. The Bill already provides that civil proceedings cannot be initiated where a notice of underpayment has been given. It would be inappropriate to impose hurdles on the fair work agency’s use of its powers; it should be able to decide how best it will use this and its other powers to enforce labour market legislation in each case.

On Amendment 272AA, Clause 92 already provides for the fair work agency to prepare and publish an annual report, which we would expect to cover all of its activities. It is simply not necessary to require individual reports on individual powers.

We strongly resist Amendment 272AB. Ultimately, the business of the next Parliament should be for that Parliament to decide and not for us to dictate now.

Briefly on Amendment 272AC, only officers with appropriate knowledge and training will carry out these powers. Clause 87(6) already clearly provides that a person can exercise the powers of an enforcement officer only to the extent specified in their appointment by the Secretary of State. This amendment would duplicate that existing provision.

To summarise, Clause 113, together with Clauses 114 and 115, delivers a manifesto commitment. It provides a new power that will enable fair work agency enforcement officers to bring proceedings to an employment tribunal in place of a worker. It is designed to address situations where a worker has a legal right to bring a claim but, for various reasons, including fear of retaliation, lack of awareness or language barriers, they are unable to do so. This clause enhances the state’s ability to support the most vulnerable workers in accessing justice and will be particularly valuable in cases involving labour exploitation or breaches of minimum employment standards.

It will bring broader benefits. The fair work agency will be able to bring multiple complaints simultaneously. This will save time and costs for workers and employers alike. It has the potential to reduce the burden on the employment tribunal system over current practices, where most claims are brought individually.

Importantly, the clause is tightly drawn. The fair work agency’s tribunal proceedings will follow the same process as if they were brought by workers. This includes a requirement for ACAS consultation. Additionally, the power cannot be used in cases where a notice of underpayment has been issued under Section 100. This ensures that there is no duplication of enforcement mechanisms. Both the Secretary of State and the worker can appeal a decision, recognising that both parties have a legitimate interest in the outcome. The clause includes safeguards to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot be held liable to the worker for how they exercise this power, reflecting the discretionary and strategic nature of enforcement.

This clause forms a crucial part of the fair work agency’s toolkit, enhances the effectiveness of labour market enforcement and delivers a manifesto commitment upon which Members in the other place were elected. It should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am listening very carefully to the Minister, and she did not address either of my specific points. Given that she is saying that this rather strange clause is to defend the interests of new migrants and black and minority-ethnic folk, many of whom work in agriculture, particularly in the east of England and other parts of the UK, why is there a carve-out for agricultural workers? The Minister did not answer my question on why that happened. Secondly, can I press her on my specific point on why de facto unemployed people fall under the purview of subsection (7) of this clause, allowing the Secretary of State to insert state apparatus into their litigation, when they are not even in gainful employment?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. My apologies; I should have answered both of those questions. On the issue of agricultural workers, I do not know the answer, so I will write to the noble Lord. On his question about why subsection (7) covers people who are not yet employed, the clause was worded in that way to capture whistleblowers and was amended to widen it to include zero-hours contract workers. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s questions.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

I am slightly confused. This seems to be quite a heavy-handed way of capturing workers who may have difficulties understanding their rights. Instead of being so heavy-handed about the whole approach and making it look like a two-tier system is being created, in which migrant workers in particular are focused on, maybe we can look at how we can inform both employers and employees about their rights, without taking such an approach. The people we are trying to protect will most definitely not be protected by this.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Although I did talk about migrant workers as an example, this is meant to capture all vulnerable workers and all workers who are exposed to unfair practices or intimidation—which happens rather more than noble Lords opposite like to acknowledge.

In conclusion, the civil proceedings powers within the Bill align with our manifesto commitment—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The Minister explained subsection (7)(a)(i) of this clause with regards to zero-hours contracts. In subsection (7)(a)(ii), I am struggling to understand how an individual

“seeking to be employed by a person as a worker”

could be a whistleblower. I would be grateful to understand that better, but I am happy for the Minister to write.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

On that point of clarification, I will write to the noble Baroness.

In conclusion, the civil proceedings powers within the Bill align with our manifesto commitment to strengthen enforcement and improve outcomes for workers through a fairer, more accessible system. We need to let the fair work agency operate with the tools it needs, guided by the statute but not constricted by inflexible restrictions or ministerial bottlenecks. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw Amendment 271D.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She will not be surprised to know that I am afraid I did not buy any of those arguments.

I am extremely grateful to my noble friends Lady Coffey, Lady Lawlor, Lord Jackson, Lord Ashcombe and Lady Verma for their interventions; they all made extremely good points. I will return to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Murray of Blidworth, in a second.

We have just heard this clause described variously as “beyond belief”, “especially bonkers”, “an utter mess”, “quite extraordinary” and “perverse and unheard of”. Do you know what? It is all of those things. This has been an extraordinary debate, and so many interesting points have been made that it is hard to sum up. However, there is one point that was brought to my attention by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who was sitting next to me at the time. He pointed out that this clause might be in contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to respect for private and family life. This needs to be explored, and it is important for the Minister to take account of, because, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, she has to sign on the front of this Bill that it is compatible with the rights under that convention.

I will read the relevant article, so it is on the record:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence … There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.


I do not expect the Minister to answer this now, but I would be very grateful if she could at least allude to the legal advice that she was given before she signed the Bill to confirm that it did not contravene Article 8.

I appreciate that government legal advice is rarely published, but, having had some experience of government lawyers and their risk-averse nature, I would be very surprised if they had considered this in its entirety. I would be grateful if the Minister would come back to that issue, perhaps in the letter to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This is clearly one of the subjects to which we will have to return, because, as both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Murray have explained, this is extraordinary and positively Kafkaesque.

I will leave the last words to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, who pointed out that we could end up in a state where we have litigation about litigation on behalf of someone who does not want to litigate. That is frankly absurd. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Before I sit down, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on her 55 years of public service. I believe that she was first elected on 18 June 1970 to represent Merton and Morden—many congratulations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

272A: Clause 113, page 125, line 21, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definition of “worker” being inserted into Part 5 by my amendment of clause 148 at page 147, line 9.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for introducing her amendment and also to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the first of which proposes a report on the expansion of legal aid in employment tribunals. It would not itself change entitlement but seeks to prompt a structured exploration of the options. Legal aid is, of course, a complex and often contested area, and this amendment simply calls for a government-led review that considers both employer compliance and the financial position of workers. It is reasonable to assess whether the current system adequately supports access to justice in employment disputes.

I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I will discuss with him outside but, just to get it on the record, I am curious to know whether the “report on the options”, which he describes in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in his lead amendment, extends to small and medium-sized employers as well. I am interested to know whether he thinks they should be included within that survey based on the fact that many of them will also suffer some financial hardship.

On the proposed new clause on summary judgments in employment tribunals in Amendment 323 by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, such a power could offer a means of reducing the burden on tribunals, improving efficiency and focusing resources on cases where the issues genuinely require full examination. In short, both amendments are interesting and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first speak to Amendment 279H in my name, which increases the time limit for making a claim to an employment tribunal in relation to paid time off for employee representatives in consultations on certain changes to occupational and personal pension schemes from three months to six months. This would amend the employment tribunal time limit that is set out in the Schedule to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006.

This amendment is essential to ensure consistency with the time limits for the majority of tribunal claims which are being amended to six months throughout the Bill. This is a technical amendment which brings the provisions on consultations on pension schemes in line with the other clauses in the Bill regarding the increase in time limits which have been set out.

Increasing tribunal time limits will provide employees and employers more time to resolve disputes internally or through the conciliation process as well as more time for employees to consider the merits of bringing a claim to an employment tribunal. Judges will continue to have the discretion to hear out-of-time claims on a case-by-case basis.

Amendment 279GZA from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to provide that the extension of employment tribunal time limits from three to six months does not apply in respect of industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland. We have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to develop an approach to extending time limits which respects the Northern Ireland Assembly’s competence to legislate on devolved matters. Where time limits are in UK-wide legislation that extends to Northern Ireland and that relates to matters that are reserved, such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, this Bill amends the time limits for bringing a claim to the industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland. We will continue to work with the Executive to consider implementation and, if appropriate, these changes may come into force at different dates for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Bill does not amend time limits in legislation that extends to Northern Ireland and is transferred—that is, devolved powers.

On Amendments 273 and 323, I understand the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in tabling his amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to them so ably. In order for the reforms we are making through this Bill to be effective, it is vital that workers can enforce their employment rights. As noble Lords know, tribunals, including employment tribunals, are designed to be informal, accessible and low-cost means of accessing justice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that the backlog of tribunal claims at the moment is unacceptable. We are taking steps to address that backlog in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, and the fair work agency can also play a part in easing that load. We will be able to debate the measures that we are taking further in later groups.

However, I would like to reassure the noble Lord that legal aid is available, subject to means and merits tests, in relation to discrimination and breaches of the Equality Act 2010. Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, funding may still be available through the exceptional case funding scheme. Of course, members of trade unions will receive advice and representation anyway as part of their membership.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on employment tribunal summary judgments, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that employment tribunals have a wide range of existing powers to address weak claims or responses, including strike-out and default judgments, to achieve the aims set out in this amendment. The strike-out rule in its framing and application is already similar to that of Rule 24 in the Civil Procedure Rules. It allows employment tribunals to strike out half or all of a claim or response, including where there is no reasonable prospect of success. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, to withdraw Amendment 273.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

273M: Clause 132, page 136, line 7, leave out “any other” and insert “an”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor drafting change.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

273P: Schedule 9, page 268, line 3, at end insert—
“The Security Industry Authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill, or functions under or by virtue of clause 113 or 114 (powers in relation to civil proceedings), to be disclosed to the Security Industry Authority for the purposes of its functions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

273S: Clause 140, page 141, line 30, leave out subsection (7)
Member's explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that enforcement costs recovered by the Secretary of State under clause 140 will be payable into the Consolidated Fund.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her amendment. She raises thoughtful and important questions about Parliament’s role as an employer and the complexity of managing the site, which contains over 600 other employers. These are legitimate concerns that deserve proper consideration, not least because Parliament should seek to model best practice in matters of employment and compliance. I think we all agree with that, but does it comply, and should there be a power of entry into these premises to check that we are complying?

My noble friend has made compelling points, and I hope that the Minister will respond with clarity and detail. The concerns that my noble friend outlined are not theoretical; they touch on the credibility of this institution as both lawmaker and employer. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and the Government's justification for retaining—or reconsidering—the exemption as drafted.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which raises an important topic: how the enforcement provisions in Part 5 would apply to Parliament and MPs as employers.

Parliament must of course comply with employment legislation. However, the Bill provides that the powers of entry in Part 5 cannot be exercised in relation to

“premises occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament”;

otherwise, Part 5 would apply to both Houses of Parliament and to MPs as employers. We are in danger of having something similar to—but slightly less than—a deep constitutional crisis, because the approach was agreed on the advice of the House authorities. It is therefore not a government decision; it is a decision made by the House authorities. They are more powerful, as far as I can see, and they can therefore overrule what the Government may think about all this.

This approach is not unusual. It aligns with recent precedents, such as Section 165(1)(a) of the Building Safety Act 2022, to respect parliamentary privilege. In this case, Parliament has to comply with employment legislation. The only issue raised here is about the power of entry not applying to the Parliamentary Estate. The noble Baroness might understand why we want to make sure that the Parliamentary Estate is secure from that challenge, and there is probably another place where she could raise her concerns about employment in the Parliamentary Estate. I have some sympathy with some of the cases that she argued about, but I suggest that she sees the House authorities about them. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I certainly will withdraw it. I did not mean to put the Minister in a difficult place, and her answer was very gracious. My amendment was based on the expectation that this is a royal palace, where things such as licensing laws and health and safety rules do not technically apply. However, that aside, we still need to consider how we act. If nothing else, I hope that this short debate has contributed to reminding ourselves of the obligations that we all share. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

279A: Schedule 11, page 290, line 19, at end insert—
“(2) Any reference in section 134 to HMRC information includes a reference to any information mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (d) which—(a) was disclosed to the Director of Labour Market Enforcement or a person falling within paragraph (a), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of paragraph 6(4) by the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or a person acting on behalf of the Commissioners, and(b) was not obtained by an officer in the course of acting for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 or by virtue of section 26(2) of the Immigration Act 2016.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for information previously disclosed by HMRC to enforcement authorities, and treated by paragraph 13 of Schedule 11 to the Bill as having been obtained by the Secretary of State in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill, to be treated as HMRC information for the purposes of clause 134, which imposes restrictions on the onward disclosure of such information without authorisation from HMRC.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

279C: Clause 148, page 145, line 31, leave out from ““employee”” to end of line 32 and insert “means an individual who is an employee within the meaning of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or Article 3(1) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1919 (N.I. 16));”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 148 at page 146, line 43 and page 147, line 9.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 279GA for a sunset clause. I perfectly understand the reason for extending the period in which employees can make claims, but I am quite sure it will increase the burden on the tribunals. We have heard about the very long delay, with even preliminary hearings not scheduled until April 2026, and these delays have continued for some years. People going to tribunal sometimes have to wait more than 18 months just to have the preliminary hearing. If numbers increase, as they are likely to, as my noble friend suggested, it is going to put far more pressure on the tribunals. The parliamentary oversight proposed and the sunset clause must take account of that.

Not only is there no point in law in having a claim left unsettled for years, but it is very bad for business to have the uncertainty. It is very bad for employees and their lives to be subject to such delays and uncertainties in what is going to happen to them professionally, because taking a claim to tribunal is not an easy matter. It can be expensive and full of obstacles. Not knowing how it will pan out is very worrying for people. For businesses, being subject to constant pressures of claims in a tribunal, whether they are justified or not, brings insecurity and a lack of confidence.

For these reasons, I think this moderate request for a sunset clause and coming back to Parliament for an affirmative vote are a good proposal, and I hope the Government will listen kindly to it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing these amendments, but I say to him that the problem he has described so vividly was one we inherited from the previous Government. We are acutely aware that these issues need to be addressed, and I share his desire to ensure that the employment tribunal system can manage its existing caseload and the potential increase from the Bill’s measures. I assure your Lordships that we are working across government and with business and the unions to identify ways to improve a system that we inherited that is not working currently for anyone.

We are already recruiting more judges and legal case workers and providing additional resources to ACAS. On top of that, we are considering other things, such as the role that the expanded fair work agency could play in reducing the time spent awaiting costly and lengthy tribunal claims.

I would be delighted to receive any constructive suggestions from the noble Lords on this issue, but it would be entirely disproportionate to make the vital improvements to workers’ rights contained in the Bill dependent on the kind of review that their amendments propose. It would be wrong to take workers’ rights to challenge unfair practices away from them when they are not to blame for the backlog that we are currently grappling with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

The Minister made reference to the number of judges that the Government are busily recruiting so as to help the backlog, and this is part of the Government’s response. Of the 35,000 extra civil servants recruited since March 2024—these are the March 2025 figures—how many are judges, and how many of them will be in the employment tribunal service? I do not expect the Minister to have the figures to hand, but I would be pleased if she could write to me.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, 50 new fee-paid employment judges were appointed in 2024-25, and a further three recruitment exercises to further increase capacity are now being undertaken in 2025-26.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for putting all this in the context of the security or insecurity of workers right across the board faced with this terrible backlog. The Minister upbraided me for the previous Government’s culpability in this, but she will know that we have been expressing serious concern about this backlog for a very long time. The fact is that it has got worse: it is 20% up on what it was when the Government came into office last year. The Minister was quite right to say there was a backlog, but my plea to her is not to make it worse.

As we draw this debate to a close, I worry that the Government have not fully grasped the critical importance of these amendments. They are not obstacles to progress but necessary safeguards to ensure that the rights we are creating are not rendered ineffective by an overwhelmed tribunal system. We urgently need clarity on the implementation plans.

The Minister promised that we would have the implementation plan “shortly”. The definition of “shortly” is “within the next hour or so”. In the dictionary, we are told that shortly means that something is about to happen. So where is it? I would like to believe that the noble Baroness’s reference to the word, which she must have carefully considered, means that tomorrow we will get it. I am very happy for her to interrupt me if I am incorrect—perhaps she could clarify.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I was trying to be helpful to the noble Lord, but since he provokes me, I will simply say that I have used my interpretation of “shortly”, rather than the dictionary definition. It will not be happening in the next hour, I can assure the noble Lord of that.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Could I possibly have a copy of the noble Baroness’s dictionary? She has just quoted from her dictionary, but sadly I do not have it to hand. We would all like to see the implementation plan, so please can we, if possible, before our next day in Committee next Tuesday?

There are all sorts of issues we have discussed that have not been answered. Why a measured approach between day one and two years? Was it ever seriously considered? There has been no answer from the noble Baroness on that. Did she look at it or did she move straight to day one? The gap in reasoning leaves many of us deeply worried about the unintended consequences for workers and employers alike. Regrettably, these are crucial issues which remain unresolved, and the Government have yet to provide the assurances we need. As we approach Report, we will have to return to this matter with a determination to secure the clarity and commitments that are so essential if the Bill is ever to be successful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, most of what I needed to say was said in the last group, so I will not labour the points, except to add a bit of colour, because my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and I consult quite widely. We consulted this morning with a distinguished employment lawyer, who told us that, if you apply now to an employment tribunal, you will have no chance at all of getting even a preliminary hearing for 10 months. That is next April. In order to get a resolution, a case resolved, you would be looking probably at December 2027. That is nearly two and a half years away. It will take a lot more than the number of judges the noble Baroness mentioned that they have recruited so far in order to fix that particular problem. I wish her good luck and I hope she succeeds, but I really do not think that we should be doing this.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the first thing I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is that if we say we are going to write, we will write: we do not need to be told that this is being monitored in some way. I would say that I feel that we on these Benches have bent over backwards to engage with noble Lords, not only in debates but outside, by having meetings and trying to work through some of these issues in more detail. So I do resent the accusation that we are somehow hiding from accountability on these issues. We are bending over backwards to be accountable.

I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that we have updated the impact assessment and written to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about it already. As noble Lords have said, we have now debated this issue quite extensively. We argue that the proposals we are putting forward will benefit not only employees but employers, by increasing the time within which workplace procedures and conciliation can be completed, creating an opportunity for more disputes to be resolved without the need for litigation.

Current ACAS performance data shows that that around a third of early conciliation notifications go on to submit an employment tribunal claim. Therefore, the longer period of time for resolving disputes internally and/or via conciliation will simplify the time limits for making employment tribunal claims and improve access to justice.

I have heard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and, as I say, we have now debated this extensively. I can assure your Lordships that this clause and schedule are essential for those who need to bring a claim to a tribunal in order to have adequate time to prepare a robust claim. I therefore ask that they stand part of the Bill.

Clause 149 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

279H: Schedule 12, page 298, line 17, at end insert—
“Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006
13A In the Schedule to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/349) (employment rights and protections in connection with consultation), in paragraph 4(2)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “three” substitute “six”;(b) in paragraph (b), for “three” substitute “six”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends from three to six months the time limit for bringing a claim in an employment tribunal under paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for so expertly introducing her amendment, and I welcome the contribution from my noble friend Lady Penn regarding the establishment of an employment law advisory committee.

We believe my noble friend’s amendments would significantly strengthen the framework for effective and balanced labour market regulation. The creation of a dedicated advisory committee, modelled on the Social Security Advisory Committee, seems a prudent and timely measure. It would provide the Secretary of State with expert independent advice that draws from a diverse range of perspectives: employers, workers, and independent experts alike. This inclusive composition is vital to ensuring that any regulations developed under the enacted Bill are well-informed, fair and workable in practice.

Moreover, the proposed committee’s clear statutory function to scrutinise draft regulations before they are laid before Parliament would introduce an important additional layer of oversight and transparency. It would help to ensure that regulations and the views of all relevant stakeholders are carefully considered. The requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the committee’s report alongside any laid regulations, including an explanation when recommendations are not followed, would enhance accountability and public confidence in the regulatory process.

In sum, we think that these amendments represent a balanced and constructive approach to policy-making in the complex area of employment law. They would help guard against rushed or poorly considered regulations, support better policy outcomes and uphold the principles of consultation and transparency that are essential to good governance.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her Amendments 299 and 300. The Government have already committed to consulting on the detail of implementation and have already undertaken extensive engagement with employers, businesses and workers’ representatives, trade unions and experts. We will continue with this approach as we develop our secondary legislation.

There are some specific instances, such as in the enforcement space, where we are proposing setting up an expert group. Upgrading the enforcement of workers’ rights is an important and complex task, where it is right to draw on expertise from businesses, workers and independent representatives.

That is why the Bill requires the Secretary of State to establish an advisory board. It will play a critical role in providing advice and insight to the Secretary of State on their enforcement function under Part 5 of the Bill, which they will in practice deliver through the fair work agency. This is a proportionate and necessary step to help ensure the agency’s effectiveness. But this is not required across the Bill and wider labour market legislation as a whole. The committee proposed by the noble Baroness would be a repetition of the planned engagement and consultation on the Bill. We have already engaged with more than 190 different stakeholder organisations on our Plan to Make Work Pay, including employers of all sizes, from SMEs to large corporations, trade unions and representative organisations representing thousands of businesses and millions of workers.

We have held round-table discussions focused on particular topics, such as zero-hours contracts, and with particular groups, such as leaders of small businesses or retailers. As a Government, we are committed to engaging closely on our plans, and we will continue to do so. This engagement will continue throughout implementation, including as we develop regulations under the Bill.

On parliamentary scrutiny, the Select Committees will of course scrutinise the government proposals and reforms as they are rolled out. The Economic Affairs Committee had an inquiry on the labour market, and the noble Baroness was herself a member of that committee, so we know that there are already bodies in the parliamentary network that can be used to provide that scrutiny. On the basis of our proposed consultation and the parliamentary scrutiny available, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment 299.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long. With the exception of the expert group, which I was not aware of, I could have written the Minister’s speaking notes myself. They ran along the lines of, “Blah, blah, blah, consultation; blah, blah, blah, Select Committees” and, basically, “We know best”.

My amendment was a genuine attempt to try to enhance the process of parliamentary scrutiny. As I am sure the Minister is aware, Select Committees are simply not set up to deal with the detail of secondary legislation; they are set up to do some things very well—usually broader-ranging topics such as those undertaken by the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House—but they never attempt to look at secondary legislation. I can see a lot of secondary legislation coming down the line and the need for a better process and greater information to help Parliament in its job on that.

I am not surprised by the Minister’s response. Before we get to Report, I will consider again what to do with my ideas, which I had hoped would be constructive contributions to the Government’s Bill. I beg leave to withdraw.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goddard is disappointed that he is unable to speak on this group this evening. Given the multiple groups of amendments concerning the fair work agency, we will restrict our comments to this group. The Department for Business and Trade has set out the rationale for the fair work agency, suggesting the current system of employment rights enforcement is fragmented and inefficient. We agree. This fragmentation causes confusion for both workers and employers and leaves many breaches, such as underpayments, unchallenged. The Bill aims to establish the fair work agency and will consolidate existing bodies responsible for enforcement, abolishing those authorities and transferring their functions.

However, there remains some uncertainty about the agency’s precise scope and responsibilities, how it will relate to existing organisations, the level of funding it will receive, how it will access and use data, and the mechanisms for compliance and oversight. Although the Bill includes data-sharing provisions and the Minister has highlighted further detail, these issues will be key in determining the agency's effectiveness.

On powers and oversight, many enforcement powers currently held by other bodies will be transferred to the fair work agency, including powers of entry. New powers, particularly in relation to HMRC, will also be introduced. Oversight of these powers is planned to be provided through independent policing standards authorities, but it is important that the limits to these powers are clear and that they are exercised proportionately.

Regarding resourcing, it is understood that around £600 million is currently allocated across the authorities being restructured into the new agency. I am sure that discussions with the Treasury on the appropriate level of funding are ongoing, but is the Minister confident that this figure will provide the resources needed to meet the scale of the agency’s mission?

Bringing enforcement functions together in the fair work agency should improve the Government’s ability to tackle labour market abuses, including serious issues such as modern slavery. It is also acknowledged that previously, fragmented responsibilities caused confusion, duplication and ineffective enforcement, so this consolidation aims to provide a clearer, stronger enforcement framework.

I will not speak at length on the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but what he said was very wise. He raised important questions about the advisory board’s composition and enforcement powers which deserve further consideration by the Minister and the Government. Given the wide-ranging powers the agency will have—from workplace inspections to civil penalties and criminal enforcement orders—it is only right that Parliament has a clear opportunity to scrutinise how these powers will be used in practice.

Before the agency becomes operational, there should be clarity around its remit, resourcing and relationship with other enforcement bodies, and around the structures of accountability that will apply. This is particularly important for small and medium-sized businesses, which often lack the internal capacity to navigate complex regulatory frameworks. Advance scrutiny and a clear published framework would offer reassurance to both workers and employers that the agency’s approach will be proportionate and well targeted. We would welcome the Minister’s further explanation of how the Government intend to maintain transparency and accountability, to ensure balanced representation on the advisory board, and to keep Parliament informed throughout the phased implementation of the fair work agency.

Finally, I seek clarity on the Government’s timeline for the agency’s full implementation and how they plan to keep Parliament updated on progress. These are significant institutional changes and deserve close attention. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group, all of which pertain to the governance of the fair work agency and its relationship with government. While I appreciate and respect the spirit in which they have been made, I must set out why the Government do not believe they are necessary or appropriate.

Amendment 263ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has good intentions; however, in practice, it introduces unnecessary rigidity into a system that already works effectively. Currently, enforcement officers undergo extensive training; for example, HMRC officers complete an 18-month programme that equips them with the skills and knowledge they need. This is a robust and proven process. There is no evidence that adding a legislative requirement for qualifications would improve outcomes. Moreover, this amendment would reduce flexibility. It would impose a legal burden that could hinder recruitment, especially when enforcement needs evolve rapidly. Finally, it is important to note that Clause 87(6) already gives the Secretary of State the power to specify which powers an officer may exercise in the appointment. This ensures appropriate oversight and safeguards without the need for additional legislation.

Similarly, Amendment 263ZB, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is, in practice, unnecessary and creates duplication. The powers granted under the Bill already require enforcement officers to provide written notices such as a notice of underpayment. These are not optional; they are embedded in the operational framework. Moreover, current enforcement bodies such as the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate already maintain detailed records of inspections. Officers also operate with a strong emphasis on consent and co-operation, often arranging visits in advance and documenting their findings thoroughly. Introducing a statutory requirement for additional reporting and oversight risks creating administrative burdens without adding meaningful value. It could divert resources away from enforcement and into bureaucracy. This amendment seeks to legislate what is already standard practice; it is not needed in the Bill, and I urge noble Lords to reject it.

Turning to Amendment 263C, the Bill already provides limitations on what powers officers can exercise through letters of appointment. I appreciate the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that enforcement officers exercise powers in a way that minimises disruption and harm to individuals and businesses, particularly as they will be extensive powers. This includes their powers to enter premises to determine whether there has been non-compliance. However, while these powers are by nature disruptive, they will be required to be exercised proportionately and reasonably, and, where possible, officers will carry out their duties on a consensual basis. In practice, this means officers will correspond with a business in advance to arrange a reasonable time and date before they visit, and they will also generally enter during business hours.

It is also worth noting that we are setting up the fair work agency as an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade. Enforcement officers will therefore be civil servants who are subject to the usual standards of public life and will be required to operate in line with the Civil Service Code. The fair work agency will take a balanced approach to carrying out its role. This is in everyone’s interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

I want to ask the Minister a question. It may be that I have missed the answer, although I have tried really hard to listen to every word that she has said. If a business wants to appeal against a decision by an enforcement officer, where does it seek that appeal?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I did cover that, but now I have forgotten what my answer was. I will write to the noble Baroness, but I think it was in my earlier contribution.

I reiterate on the small business question that businesses that comply with their obligations should not see any increased burden from enforcement activity. The fair work agency will target only the minority of employers engaged in illegal practices, so including specific carve-outs could create loopholes that bad actors might exploit. In fact, businesses of all sizes stand to benefit from a fairer labour market where exploitative practices are actively addressed as this will create a level playing field for all.

Let us not forget that we are creating the fair work agency to deliver an upgrade to the enforcement of workers’ rights. If we created a carve-out for businesses based purely on size, we would be creating a two-tier system for enforcement. This is unfair for workers and businesses.

Amendment 268 risks compromising the balanced representation of the advisory board. The current drafting has been carefully chosen to reflect the social partnership model that has served the Low Pay Commission and ACAS well for many years. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked on behalf of his noble friend Lord Holmes whether representatives of labour market standards would be on the advisory board. The Secretary of State will appoint individuals if they are considered to be independent experts. That recruitment and selection process will include a thorough assessment of the applicant’s qualifications, experience and potential conflicts of interest.

Vulnerable workers have been waiting for the fair work agency for years. It will deliver the worker protection enforcement authority that was proposed in the Liberal Democrat 2024 manifesto and the single enforcement body that was the policy of successive Conservative-led Administrations. It now forms a key plank of the plan to make work pay, a key manifesto pledge upon which this Government was elected. Bringing together the fragmented labour market enforcement landscape has been a policy aim for successive Governments. We cannot let this critical policy be delayed any more. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 263ZA.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

I am very grateful for what the Minister said in response to my amendments. I think she said that the framework document will state that enforcement officers will have complete operational independence from Ministers, which is reassuring to know. Presumably, therefore, it would be possible for the terms of appointment of enforcement officers under Clause 87(6) to state the same thing. Clause 87(6) states that:

“A person appointed under this section may exercise any powers of an enforcement officer to the extent specified in the appointment”.


There is another perfect place in which to reassert that they are operationally independent of the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I said earlier in my contribution that the letters of appointment made to these people will spell out their duties. Obviously, their relationship to the Secretary of State will be spelled out in the letter of appointment. I have said several times now that they will be operationally independent, so that could be a key message in those letters of appointment.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for her extensive answer and to my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Coffey, the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere, Lord Londesborough and Lord Stoneham, for their contributions to this short but very interesting debate.

As we come to the end of our discussion on these amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, I express my thanks to noble Lords who have contributed with such clarity and conviction and my disappointment with the Government’s response. Amendment 269, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, fits very neatly with the requirement on the Secretary of State to produce annual reports under Clause 92. The Secretary of State has a duty to consult the advisory board, so I simply cannot understand why the Government would reject the idea of just combining the two and getting on with it. Equally, I do not understand why they would not want to take the suggestions of my noble friend Lady Coffey to tighten up the requirement. Nothing under those terms for the advisory board or the reports that need to be produced by the Secretary of State require a great deal of external information.

We have tabled amendments that are measured, constructive and rooted in principle. We have not sought to gut the Bill or to frustrate its aim of enforcing fair and lawful treatment in the labour market. On the contrary, we have sought to strengthen it and to ensure that the powers that it grants are effective and accountable, that enforcement is robust and fair and that ordinary businesses, especially small and micro enterprises, are not crushed under the weight of uncertainty, disproportionate penalties or faceless bureaucracy.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made excellent points about accountability. Enforcement is about not just force but legitimacy. It is about trust, and trust is only sustained when those who wield power are subject to oversight, transparency and to reasonable limits. That is not red tape. It is just a democratic principle. That is why we ask for qualifications and training to be made a prerequisite for enforcement officers, an obvious step given the serious powers that they will be entrusted with.

The Minister rejected my amendment introducing that notion, saying that it was not necessary because of Clause 87(6), just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I note that Clause 87(3) says:

“In this Part ‘enforcement officer’ means a person appointed by the Secretary of State under this section”—


note that it says, “a person”, not necessarily “a qualified person”—whereas Clause 87(6), on which the Minister replied, says:

“A person appointed under this section may exercise any powers of an enforcement officer to the extent specified in the appointment”.


As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, informed us, there is no notion in there of independence, skills or anything else. That argument as to why our amendment is not necessary falls based on what is in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

I regret that we find ourselves here, and I regret even more that those who will bear the brunt of this will not be the rogue employers that the Government claim to target but the honest, hard-working and often overstretched small businesses that form the backbone of our economy. On our Benches, we certainly intend to continue to make the case for a fairer, smarter enforcement regime. Tonight, I express my sincere disappointment that the Government have not chosen to help us along with that ambition and have rejected our very sensible and pragmatic amendments. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Just before we move on, I wanted to clarify to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, that I have now found the note in my speaking notes. I confirm that I did say that the fair work agency will have a clear and transparent complaints procedure modelled on the procedures of the current bodies, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

Amendment 263ZA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

264A: Schedule 7, page 262, line 32, leave out “or a person seeking work”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definition of “worker” being inserted into Part 5 by my amendment of clause 148 at page 147, line 9.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Government Amendment 264A, and will speak to Government Amendments 265A, 271A, 272A, 273M, 273P, 273S, 279A, 279B, 279C, 279D, 279E, 279F and 279G. I thank all noble Lords who attended the all-Peers briefing on these amendments that I gave on 8 May. As was explained at that time, the amendments aim to make the creation of the fair work agency effective, including by ensuring a smooth transition from the current arrangements, and they are not new policy.

Without the correct information-sharing gateways, the fair work agency will not be able to do its job; Clause 132 is vital to making sure that it can. Government Amendment 273M makes a minor drafting change to Clause 132(3). Specifically, it clarifies that information obtained by the fair work agency in connection with an enforcement or civil proceedings function under Part 5 of the Bill can be used for other functions under Part 5. This change ensures that the benefits of bringing together responsibility for enforcing a range of rights are fully realised.

Government Amendment 273P adds the Security Industry Authority to the list of persons in Schedule 9. This will enable the fair work agency enforcement officers to disclose information obtained under the enforcement functions in Part 5 of the Bill with the Security Industry Authority, where that information relates to its statutory functions. Any disclosure will be subject to other restrictions in the Bill and existing safeguards. For example, a disclosure will not be authorised under Clause 132 if it would constitute a breach of data protection legislation or is otherwise prohibited by certain provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

Government Amendment 279A clarifies that the information captured by the definition of “HMRC information” in Clause 134 will be subject to appropriate safeguards regarding onward disclosure where specified conditions are met. This will ensure that there will be continuity as we set up the fair work agency and that all information is handled with the appropriate sensitivities.

Government Amendment 271A is a minor technical amendment to Clause 111. It sets out that where a liable party has failed to comply with the requirement in a notice of underpayment to repay arrears to an individual, the fair work agency can make an application to court for an order. Sub-paragraph (6) defines “a court” for the purposes of this section. This amendment clarifies that summary sheriffs can also have jurisdiction to hear these applications in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that in good legislative processes it is not ideal to have technical amendments at this stage. However, it is better to identify them now rather than later in the process, and we have bent over backwards to engage Peers to explain why they are necessary. In a previous role on the Opposition Benches, I spent a lot of time in secondary legislation sessions correcting technical issues that should have been identified in primary legislation by the previous Government, but that debate may be for another day. In the meantime, of course we aspire to better legislative processes in future, and I agree with the noble Lord. I beg to move.

Amendment 264A agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

265A: Schedule 7, page 263, line 3, leave out “or a person seeking work”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definition of “worker” being inserted into Part 5 by my amendment of clause 148 at page 147, line 9.

--- Later in debate ---

is and to recognise the sensible guardrails that my noble friend put forward, as well as what my noble friends on the shadow Front Bench articulated about the costs that would be attributed to the worker that would be at risk, and which certainly need to be borne by the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for tabling their amendments. This Government are committed to ensuring a fair playing field for all employees and businesses. This is why the Secretary of State will have the power to bring proceedings in place of a worker: it will mean that all employers are held to the same standards.

Amendments 267A, 271B, 271C and 272ZA have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intentions behind them—seeking fairness, clarity and accountability—I believe that they undermine those objectives. I have major concerns about Amendment 267A. A fundamental principle of the fair work agency is that it will have operational independence. As we have debated, the Secretary of State’s involvement will be at strategic level only. This amendment would undo all that; it would explicitly make any use of the civil proceedings powers dependent on a political decision. This goes against the whole thrust of what we have been debating up to now, and we therefore cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 271B would exclude legislation, such as on family leave, unfair dismissals or redundancies, from the scope of this power. These issues can have a substantial impact on people’s working lives and they are part of the employment package. It is right that the fair work agency has the discretion to support enforcement in these areas and to ensure that employees get what they are entitled to.

Amendment 271C is unnecessary. The Bill already builds in appropriate safeguards to prevent cases being relitigated. In considering whether a worker will bring proceedings, the Secretary of State will have to consider whether a worker has already contacted ACAS. If they have, it would serve as a strong indicator that they are contemplating proceedings. Therefore, where a settlement is being discussed, or has already been reached through ACAS, it is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State would pursue a claim. This amendment would create a rigid prohibition that may have unintended consequences. The Government would be restricted from acting where new evidence shows that a settlement was reached under duress.

On Amendment 272ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the Bill already makes it clear that any reference to a worker in proceedings brought by the Secretary of State should be read as including the Secretary of State. In practice, this means that, while it is for the tribunal to decide whether or not to award costs, a costs order could be made only in respect of a party to the case. This would be the Secretary of State, where they are the party that has brought this case. Therefore, this makes this amendment unnecessary.

On Amendment 272, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in the worst cases of serious exploitation and intimidation, a worker may want to bring proceedings but fear the repercussions they may face from the employer should they be de-anonymised. Allowing the Secretary of State to take a case forward without consent would make it harder for employers to attribute blame to individual employees and also ensure that action could be taken against exploitation. Ultimately, I agree with the noble Baroness that this will take place only in exceptional circumstances, not least because it is more difficult to argue a case without the assistance of the worker. Nevertheless, where there is a breach of employment rights, there should be consequences. The fair work agency will decide the most appropriate route of enforcement, and it is important that in the most serious cases we allow this power as an option.

Finally, on the Amendments to Clause 114 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, the existing drafting of Clause 114 states:

“The Secretary of State may assist a person”.


This drafting was carefully thought through and is deliberately broad and inclusive. It includes both natural and legal persons, so it already covers both employers and their legal advisers. This amendment does not alter the substance of the clause, but merely restates what is already covered and therefore risks introducing confusion.

On the noble Lord’s Amendment 272C, Clause 114 has been carefully monitored against the provisions found in Section 28 of the Equality Act 2006, which also provides for any other form of assistance. This language has been used to ensure flexibility and inclusivity in the types of support that may be provided. This is neither novel nor excessive and is limited to assistance in the context of civil proceedings. To narrow the clause in the way this amendment does would compromise its effectiveness and undermine its accessibility. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will not pursue their amendments and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw his Amendment 267A.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for providing an important guardrail: the idea that the Secretary of State has to pass a public interest test. I do not think the Minister gave us a direct answer to that suggestion. So far as my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough are concerned, there are huge concerns about the way this will affect small businesses in particular. Again, I do not think the Minister addressed that particular point. I regret the fact that the Minister has not acknowledged the importance of these significant gaps in the Bill.

It is concerning that the challenges inherent in delegating the Secretary of State’s enforcement functions to others who may lack the necessary competence or accountability are not being fully recognised at the present time. How does such delegation genuinely serve the interests of workers if it risks inconsistent decision-making and a lack of clear responsibility?

Moreover, the Bill fails to address the very real issue of claims that have already been settled. Employment tribunals are already struggling with an overwhelming backlog, and reopening settled cases would only exacerbate this problem. Surely, we have got to avoid a situation where the Secretary of State is empowered to reopen disputes that workers and employers believed were finally resolved. This not only causes unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for all parties involved but threatens to damage the fragile trust and relations between employers and employees. If this Bill is to be truly effective and fair, it has got to acknowledge these realities: —ignoring them will only undermine the very goals it seeks to achieve. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Let us be clear: the role of independent experts on this board is to bring evidence-based insight, practical knowledge and analytical rigour to complex questions of labour market enforcement. They could be legal scholars, economists, public policy professionals, former regulators or data scientists with expertise in employment trends and rights. Disqualifying such individuals on the basis of perceived alignment with employers or unions, however tenuous, would only undermine the quality and credibility of the board’s advice.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I will begin by addressing Amendments 267AC and 267BB, which relate to the chair of the advisory board. The Bill already provides for a strong and credible chair, and we are confident that appropriate appointments can be made under the current drafting. These amendments would significantly narrow the pool of qualified candidates and exclude highly capable candidates. There is no precedent for such restrictions among similar bodies.

For example, the current chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. She brings deep expertise in public policy, regulation and public service to the role, but she is not a practising barrister. The focus should be on appointing the best candidate through a rigorous merit-based process, not restricting eligibility by profession. Moreover, there is no precedent for these amendments. Similar bodies, such as the Low Pay Commission and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, do not impose this level of restriction or require parliamentary approval. These models work precisely because they allow the Secretary of State to appoint individuals with diverse and complementary expertise. We fully support a strong, credible chair, but that is best achieved through a robust and flexible appointments process, not through rigid statutory constraints or exclusions.

On Amendments 267B and 267BA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we have no objection in principle to a larger advisory board, but this should be balanced against an increased cost to the taxpayer. In practice, we anticipate there will be nine members of the board mirroring the make-up of the Low Pay Commission, which has operated successfully for 25 years. The current drafting provides flexibility so that the Secretary of State may appoint more than nine members, but it is unwise to lock a specific number into primary legislation without operational justification. The amendment would create a fixed number of advisory board members. Clause 90 already provides for what the amendment seeks to achieve.

Turning to Amendments 267C and 267D, these amendments risk compromising the balanced representation of the advisory board. The current drafting has been carefully chosen to reflect the social partnership model that has served the Low Pay Commission and ACAS well for so many years with a mixture of employer, union and independent representation. Amendments 267C and 267D also seek to broaden employee representation on the advisory board by reducing the emphasis on trade unions. Let me be clear: trade unions serve to protect and advance the interests of all workers, and they are best placed to represent workers’ interests on the advisory board. Moreover, the Secretary of State has broad discretion to appoint members with relevant expertise as independent experts. The Government are also committed to ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders through a variety of formal and informal means, so the advisory board is only one part of the landscape.

This leads me on to Amendment 268A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. The independent experts are intended to bring deep subject matter expertise and a perspective not already captured by the other members of the advisory board. The existing drafting already protects against partiality, as an independent expert is a person who does not fall within the groups mentioned in Clause 94. The Bill already provides a sound and balanced framework for the board’s composition, one that is adaptable, proportionate and future-proof. I must therefore resist these amendments.

I must also respectfully resist Amendment 269, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which risks undermining the very purpose of the advisory board. Transparency in governance is vital, and the Government share the commitment to ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Placing a statutory duty on the advisory board to publish its advice could compromise that level of confidentiality and flexibility which we believe is essential for it to carry out its role effectively. Mandating a separate annual report also risks formalising what should remain a responsive advisory relationship, potentially limiting the board’s ability to offer genuine, timely and informal guidance on emerging issues.

Introducing even more reporting requirements would place a confusing and unnecessary reporting burden on enforcement teams, potentially diverting staff and resources away from front-line inspection and enforcement work, where they are most needed.

With this in mind, I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 267AC.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend Lady Coffey and I raised the increasing statistical irrelevance of the trade unions. I do not think the Minister addressed that point. She also seemed to write off the idea of the advisory board amendments that we proposed, on the basis that they would be expensive to the taxpayer. But Clause 90(6) says:

“The Secretary of State may pay such remuneration or allowances to members of the Board as the Secretary of State may determine”.


They could determine to pay nothing, presumably, so why would that be an expense to the taxpayer?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thought I covered those points. As I said, we anticipate that the advisory board will have nine members, but we are building in some flexibility. We were trying to avoid locking a specific number into the primary legislation without any operational justification. I think that answers that point.

On the point about the unions, of course, if we stick with the social partnership model, they will be in a minority anyway. They will have the expertise and the knowledge to represent all employment issues on behalf of the workers.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49F and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 49P, 49Q, 49R, 49S and 49T in lieu.

49P: Line 3, leave out “12” and insert “9”

--- Later in debate ---

49T: After Clause 134, insert the following new Clause—
“Progress statement
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement setting out what progress has been made towards the publication of—
(a) the economic impact assessment required by section (Economic impact assessment), and
(b) the report required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems).
(2) The duty in subsection (1) does not apply where the economic impact assessment and the report have been published before the end of the period described in that subsection.”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. I will keep my opening remarks brief. The Government have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that we need to properly analyse the 11,500 consultation responses before we consider bringing forward legislative change relating to AI and copyright. For that reason, the amendments in lieu, passed by the other place, are the same as the government amendments previously tabled in this House. I understand that this is a source of disappointment to some noble Lords, but it is not fair to say—as some have outside of your Lordships’ House—that the Government have in any way been unclear about their intentions, or misled or disrespected noble Lords.

I turn to the new Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. I understand and share his desire for a quick and effective solution. I thank him for the productive and helpful meeting we had ahead of this debate. I recognise that people have not been reassured entirely so far, which is unfortunate. I want to give the House the same undertaking I gave the noble Lord: we will work as hard as possible on this issue. I can reassure him, and your Lordships, that our plan will give copyright holders as much protection and support as possible, including via transparency, enforcement and renumeration, while not pre-empting the outcomes of the important and necessary processes that we have set out and without pre-judging any future legislation. We want to ensure that we uphold our gold standard copyright regime while also adapting to the new challenges. I look forward to working with the noble Lord as part of the parliamentary working group on this issue.

In the meantime, I urge noble Lords to accept the Government’s Motion and the amendments in lieu. That is the best way to finally pass the data Bill, with the compromises the Government have made to address this issue as quickly as possible. This will speed up our work, make it more comprehensive and provide Parliament with a meaningful update within six months—a clock that only starts ticking once this Bill has passed. These steps increase engagement and accountability, but without pre-judging or pre-empting the consultation to which so many took the time to respond.

In my most recent all-Peers letter, I was pleased to share details of the cross-party parliamentary working group that DSIT is establishing to support our next steps. I take this opportunity to reassure those already on the relevant Select Committees that this group will not in any way replace or dilute their core work. Minister Bryant confirmed yesterday that we will meet with relevant Select Committee chairs in both Houses to discuss how this new group can complement existing mechanisms. I will provide an update to your Lordships’ House on the formation and progress of the working group as soon as I am able to.

Lastly, I thank Members of your Lordships’ House for their contributions to the debates on the Bill during its passage. I look forward to hearing their contributions on other matters once the Bill has passed. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, as everybody has said, it is deeply disappointing that we once again find ourselves in this position. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has brought the concerns of copyright owners to the attention of the Government time and again. Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government have declined to respond to the substance of those concerns and to engage with them properly. As I said in the previous round of ping-pong—I am starting to lose count—the uncertainty of the continued delay to this Bill is hurting all sides. Even businesses that are in industries far removed from concerns about AI and copyright are waiting for the data Bill. It has been delayed because of the Government’s frankly stubborn mismanagement of the Bill.

I understand completely why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, feels sufficiently strongly about how the Government have acted to move his very inventive amendment. It strikes at the heart of how this Government should be treating your Lordships’ House. If Ministers hope to get their business through your Lordships’ House in good order, they will rely on this House trusting them and collaborating with them. I know that these decisions are often made by the Secretary of State. I have the highest respect for the Minister, but this is a situation of the Government’s making. I note in passing that it was very disappointing to read that the Government’s planned AI Bill will now be delayed by at least a year.

All that said, as the Official Opposition we have maintained our position, as ping-pong has progressed, that protracted rounds of disagreement between the other place and your Lordships’ House should be avoided. This situation could have been avoided if the Government had acted in good faith and sought compromise.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I repeat again our absolute commitment to the creative sector and our intention to work with it to help it flourish and grow. This is London Tech Week. All Ministers, including me and my colleagues, have been involved in that, showcasing the UK’s rising tech talent to the world. I do not feel I should apologise for our involvement with the tech sector in that regard.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Perhaps the Minister could note that I said that of course they should be meeting. It was the fact that the creative industries did not get a response that was at issue here.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I apologise to the creative sector if it did not get a response. I can follow that up, but I was responding to a different point made by other people casting aspersions about our ministerial involvement with this sector, which is an important sector for our economy.

It is clear that several noble Lords still have concerns about the Government’s plan. I understand their concerns, even if I do not share them—just as I am sure that they understand our concerns with the proposed alternatives, even if they do not share them. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that it is a matter of fact that the Bill does not change, weaken or block anything in copyright law. We believe in transparency, protection and enforcement, and we agree with remuneration. This is our task ahead. But the Government’s firm view remains that we cannot prejudge the consultation, the technical or parliamentary working groups or the proposals resulting from these that will be brought forward in our report.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I understand the Minister’s point about not wanting to prejudge the consultation—although on other issues, such as VAT on school fees, that did not seem to apply. What I have difficulty with is why the Government were not prepared to take a power that would enable them to act at a subsequent date and does not require them to do so.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, this is because we believe the powers we already have are sufficient to enable us to enact the regulations once we have finished the piece of work we are working on.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his speech, and repeat my assurances in response to his ask. Our plans will give copyright holders as much protection as possible via transparency, enforcement and remuneration. Our report, nine months from Royal Assent, will contain our proposals to put this in place. The Government are also looking at the case for more comprehensive AI legislation that delivers on our manifesto commitment. I expect any comprehensive legislation to address the opportunities and challenges presented by AI to the creative sector.

I turn now to concerns that the Government have not compromised on this issue. Noble Lords are right that we have deep concerns about pre-empting all the work that is necessary to determine what future laws should contain. It is an important principle that good government consults, respects the responses and then sets out its proposals. I expect any comprehensive legislation that follows—to address the opportunities and challenges presented by the AI sector—to encompass those principles.

However, I want to remind noble Lords of everything I am referring to when I say that the Government have compromised. The Government have compromised on the consultation with the Secretary of State, recognising concerns about the preferred option and the lack of an impact assessment, and by introducing a report that will set out proposals and which will be accompanied by a full impact assessment.

The Government have also compromised on the process. The reports will be brought forward even more quickly, with more topics included in them, and there will be a progress statement, and technical and parliamentary working groups will now be set up to complement this process.

I press my point to noble Lords: the Government have compromised many times on many issues, but where we cannot compromise is on one of the principles of good government: namely, that we cannot prejudge the outcome of these processes.

Online Abuse: Protection for Children

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect children against abusive online communication.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, keeping children safe is a priority for this Government. Under the Online Safety Act, services must prevent all users encountering illegal abuse and harassment online. These duties are already in force. Services likely to be accessed by children must also protect them from content that is harmful to them, including bullying, abusive or hateful content. Ofcom recommends measures including ensuring that algorithms filter out such content, to make sure that children are protected from abusive online communications.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. A recent NSPCC report highlights how the design of social media platforms is enabling the abuse, exploitation and harassment of girls. Girls are disproportionately at risk, with only 9% of them feeling safe in online spaces. The report shows how the detailed nature of public social media accounts makes it too easy for adult strangers to pick out girls and send unsolicited messages to their accounts. Online platforms need to prevent abusive content being sent and develop a safety-by-design approach. How will the Government ensure that Ofcom is doing everything in its power to require tech companies to keep girls safe from unacceptable abuse and reaffirm the Government’s commitment to protecting girls online?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this profound issue. Ofcom’s codes go beyond current industry standards and practices. Under the Online Safety Act, companies cannot decline to take steps to protect children, including young girls, because it is too expensive or inconvenient. Protecting children is a priority. The Secretary of State has said that safety by design is one of the priorities in the statement of strategic priorities of this Government. Ofcom is required to consider those priorities in its approach to online safety regulation and will need to provide regular updates on how they are being delivered.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, why have civic groups and campaigners been told that their responses to the consultation on the children’s code will not be considered for incorporation into the code until the next round of regulations in 18 months’ time? When dealing with the rapidly evolving tech sector, does the Minister not agree that this regulatory cycle is too slow?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as part of its statutory duties, Ofcom consulted widely on the proposals in the codes and considered responses from a wide range of stakeholders, including children and civil society organisations. Ofcom has been clear that it has reflected these views in its decision. It has made a number of changes reflecting feedback from civil society stakeholders. For example, it has substantially strengthened the expectation on services that set a minimum age—often 13.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister not concerned that in present and projected legislation for online content the responsibility of those who provide the source of this material is out of proportion to that of the platforms? Is she satisfied that the platform operators are sufficiently responsible for what happens?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, Ofcom has to take steps, and will do, under the illegal content codes and the children’s code against those platforms and the originators of harmful or illegal content. Indeed, I am pleased to say that as Ofcom has started to roll out its responsibilities, a number of what we would regard as inappropriate app sites have been blocked or ceased to function in the UK, because they know they cannot comply with the current legislation.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given the grave, ever-present threat to children’s mental well-being from all online activities, what updated guidance, if any, has been issued to schools on child protection?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, schools must have a policy on this issue. They are all expected to have a policy about the use of phones in schools, for example, and we have been very clear about our expectations on that. The noble Baroness is right: the issue of mental health is fundamental, and tackling excessive screen time among children is a real priority for the Government. Nevertheless, we recognise that online activities can have benefits for children, such as helping them make connections, learn new skills and gain independence. We want to get that right and make sure that children have a balanced childhood overall, with a mixture of online and offline activities, and that will be our strategy going forward.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, following on from that last question, can the Minister say what is being done to ensure that teachers have the right skills to train children in school on the dangers of online communication?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, this is already a priority. The Department for Education is making sure that teachers have the training support to tackle these issues. Teachers have been asking for this, and we have responded, because sometimes they feel that they do not have the tools to raise these issues appropriately. It is something that the department is anxious to deal with, and it is building it into future training programmes to give teachers more confidence to tackle these issues.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Given that children are among the most vulnerable users online and are often disproportionately affected by online harms, it is notable that none of the eligibility criteria of the super-complaints mechanism recognise or require expertise on online safety relating to children. Are the Government prepared to address this oversight?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an issue that we of course take seriously. We want to make sure that we have the right spread of expertise reflected in the super-complaints process. We are still working that through with Ofcom, and we will be able to spell it out in more detail very soon. However, I take the noble Lord’s point, which is a good one. I will go back and check that that is indeed being addressed.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that too many of our regulators use consultation as a method of doing nothing? Should we not ask our regulators to be more precise, get on with the job that they have been charged with doing and protect the public?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

In this case, Ofcom can do only what legislators ask it to do or provide for it to do. It is limited in that. As noble Lords will know, Ofcom has a clear remit to implement the Online Safety Act. I know that we have discussed this several times before, but I think that as we roll out the illegal codes and the children’s safety code, they will make a profound difference to what children can see. I am confident that Ofcom has the resources and wherewithal to make that step change, which we all know is necessary.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am an ex-trustee of the NSPCC. One of the answers that the Minister gave regarded algorithms. What experience and expertise does Ofcom have to ensure that those algorithms capture the vast majority of harm that is put on the internet and on social media, because who develops the algorithms holds the key to this?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Algorithms are a real challenge, and we know some of the damage that can be done by them if they do not operate effectively. When Ofcom published its child safety codes on 24 April, it set out 40 measures that companies are expected to take to comply with the child safety duties. Measures include age-assurance technology, changing algorithms to filter out harmful content and adopting mechanisms so that parents and children can easily report harmful content. It is part of the children’s code to address algorithms. Over time, Ofcom will be able to report on how successful it has been in expecting that of platforms.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, building on the comment of my noble friend Lord Colville about the amount of time between consultation and action being taken, could the Minister draw to the attention of Ofcom the report by the NSPCC that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to? It contains no fewer than 27 specific suggestions and solutions for Ofcom to include in the illegal harms code of practice, in addition to the 40 she just named. If she could bring that to the attention of Ofcom and perhaps encourage it to get its skates on, that would be greatly appreciated.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that Ofcom has regular dialogue with the NSPCC and other stakeholders, but I will double-check to make sure that, as the noble Lord says, the issues and recommendations are being addressed.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 215ZA is in my name and seeks to insert a new clause following Clause 56. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives of both employers and trade unions, on the use of digital communication methods as part of trade union access agreements under Clause 56. Furthermore, it would require that the outcome of that consultation be published and that the provisions of Clause 56 may not come into force until that has happened.

Let me say at the outset that this is a moderate, practical and entirely necessary amendment. It does not challenge the principle of union access. It does not frustrate the core intent of the legislation. What it does is inject a degree of transparency, rigour and, crucially, consent into a provision that, as it stands, risks doing significant unintended harm to employers and employees alike.

I refer to the remarks made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Katz, during Committee. I thought they were illuminating and, frankly, somewhat concerning. The noble Lord assured us that the Government intend to consult further on the digital provisions. But here is the critical point: the legislation as currently drafted allows Clause 56 to come into force before that consultation has occurred and before any regulations are laid. In effect, this Committee is being asked to pass a framework of legal obligations that have real-word consequences for access to workplaces and digital systems without knowing the rules that will underpin them. This is legislation in reverse, because it enables powers first and critical definitions and safeguards later.

Let us take the words of the noble Lord, Lord Katz, directly. He said that

“the precise details of how this will work in practice will be set out in secondary legislation following further consultation”.

But secondary legislation, as we have discussed many times over the course of this Bill and others that this Government are putting through, is not subject to the same scrutiny as primary legislation. It is not amendable. It can be laid quietly and approved via negative procedures. That is why we must build the consultation obligation directly into the primary legislation. Without it, we risk leaving employers, particularly small and medium-sized employers, exposed to obligations they neither understand nor have had the opportunity to influence.

The noble Lord acknowledged that digital access was not included in the original drafting of the Bill and so was not debated during the Commons Committee stage. It was inserted at a late stage in the legislative process. When pressed on this by my noble friend Lady Coffey last week, the noble Lord could offer no justification for the timing or the rationale behind that late change. Instead, we were told that

“in 2025, the idea that access to a workforce would not include digital channels is, frankly, fanciful”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; cols. 984 and 985.]

Again, those were the noble Lord’s words.

That may well be the case, but policy made on assumptions and generalities is not good policy. What exactly will “digital access” mean in practice? Will unions be allowed to email employees directly? Will they be granted access to internal mailing lists? What about secure internal platforms or workplace intranets? Will employers be compelled to share employee contact details or act as intermediaries in the distribution of union materials? What safeguards will exist to protect commercially sensitive information, particularly in small firms that operate on a single device or a shared system?

My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley also raised a very pertinent point last week. He said:

“The Government are asking the House of Lords tonight to pass legislation that will allow a third person the right to access an employee’s computer … without any controls, references or parameters”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; cols. 984-85.]


That is not mere rhetoric but a credible reading of the Bill in its current form. If that is not the Government’s intent, we need clarity in law, not just reassurance from the Dispatch Box.

The noble Lord, Lord Katz, tried to deflect concerns by pointing to data protection legislation, but as many in this Committee know only too well, data protection laws regulate the use of personal data; they do not in themselves govern the parameters of access rights under trade union law. Nor do they address the central concern here: that employees and unions need agreed, defined rules of engagement for digital contact in the context of access rights. Indeed, the Government’s apparent position is that all this can be worked out later. That is simply not acceptable. When legislation interferes with the operation of businesses, the integrity of secure systems and the balance of power between employers and unions, it is not enough to say, “Trust us to sort it out in regulations”.

Let me also address the claim that consultation will happen eventually. Of course we welcome that promise, but good process means consulting before rules take effect, not after. It means asking those affected what is reasonable before forcing them to comply, and that is all this amendment does. It would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders, including trade unions and employers; that the outcome of that consultation be published in the interests of transparency and trust; and that the relevant part of the legislation, Clause 56, cannot come into force until that is done. That would give everyone fair notice. It would ensure meaningful engagement and prevent the scenario we are currently hurtling towards: a system through which access rights could be imposed by the Central Arbitration Committee, including digital access, without any shared understanding of what that entails.

Access must be delivered in a way that is workable, proportionate and appropriate in each workplace context. In many modern workplaces, digital contact is indeed the most effective route, but in some environments, especially among some SMEs, it also represents a point of vulnerability both for the operations and for data security. I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for Amendment 215ZA, which seeks to commit the Government to consult with trade unions and representatives of employers on the detail of Clause 56, which covers trade union right of access. In particular, it would require the Government to consult on the use of digital communication as part of access agreements.

I can confirm that the Government have already committed to consulting with both trade unions and employers’ representatives on the framework and conditions of access, including on the details of that digital access. I can confirm that we will not bring forward secondary legislation on this before we have consulted. While I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment, and I look forward to the upcoming debates on Schedule 6 and Clause 57, I must ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

When the consultations are going on, how much consultation is being done with businesses from the black and ethnic minority communities? As I keep repeating in this House, I have been speaking to lots of businesses and I have yet to come across one that feels that it is being consulted.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Baroness that all the main business organisations are consulted as a matter of course, and many of our consultations are available more widely. I take on board her question about the black community and I will ensure that, where it has representative organisations, they are included.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her answer. Just to be clear, as I understand it, that means that this aspect of the Bill will not be commenced until consultation has taken place. As my noble friend has just suggested, this begs the question of exactly who will be consulted and how. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on that. I do not expect her to be able to answer that now, but it would be very welcome if she could outline the details of this consultation in a letter in due course. However, I am grateful that she has committed to having the consultation before the commencement of this provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his keen interest in and amendments to Clause 57 and Schedule 6. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has set out his opposition to both the clause and schedule.

Clause 57 and Schedule 6 speak to our commitment to strengthening collective bargaining and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified, so that workers have security in the workplace by having a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. As we have heard, to achieve this, the clause and schedule remove the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will need only a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win.

The current requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that it is likely there will be a majority for union recognition poses a significant hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented. That is why the clause deletes the requirement for a union to demonstrate, on application to the CAC, that it is likely to win a recognition ballot. In future, unions will need to show only that they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit for their application for recognition to be accepted by the CAC.

We also wish to consider whether the current 10% membership requirement on application should be lowered in future. The clause therefore provides a power to enable the Secretary of State to make affirmative regulations, which we will consult on, to amend the 10% membership requirement in future, within the parameters of 2% to 10%, as we have set out in Schedule 6.

Clause 57 and Schedule 6 also address unfair practices and access arrangements in the process of recognition and derecognition of trade unions. I hope this satisfies noble Lords who oppose this clause and schedule that these measures strengthen collective bargaining rights.

Before I turn to the amendments to Schedule 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, it is worth noting that the Government have also tabled amendments to it. We will debate them shortly, and noble Lords may wish to consider them for the context of today’s debates.

Amendments 215AZA, 216AA and 216BB would carve out recruitment in the usual course of the employer’s business from the freeze on the bargaining unit provided for in the Bill. This is well intentioned. Indeed, we consulted on options for a more targeted approach to preventing mass recruitment into the bargaining unit with the aim to thwart a recognition application. However, after considering responses to the consultation, we concluded that a more targeted approach is not workable, as it would be difficult to establish a sufficient level of proof to determine the purpose for which workers had been recruited. In addition, a new obligation on employers to demonstrate their recruitment intent would be a disproportionate and unfair burden, and it could result in employers having to divulge commercially sensitive information.

Amendment 215AA, at least in some cases, seeks to reinstate the 10% membership test on application. It also—again, at least in some cases—would remove the references in Schedule 6 that exclude workers recruited following receipt by the CAC of a trade union recognition application from counting for the purposes of the recognition process.

I will set out my reasoning in relation to the 10% membership threshold on application and why we are including a power in the Bill to allow Ministers to vary the membership threshold from 10% to 2% in the next debate. New Schedule A1 should be consistent on this principle. I refer noble Lords to what I have said previously on this issue. I will also set out why we believe employers should no longer be able to recruit workers into the bargaining unit for the purpose of thwarting a trade union recognition application. I am steadfast that this reform is necessary to ensure that the process is fair and must not be undermined by what could be underhand tactics.

I turn to Amendments 215DA to 215DC, 215EA, 215FA to 215FF, 215FI, 215GA, 215HA and 216BA. Did I get that wrong?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

No, the noble Baroness got it right.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

These amendments seek to delay when unions would be able to request access during the recognition process until after the bargaining unit had been agreed or determined. While I understand what the noble Lord is attempting to achieve with these amendments, employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. The Government’s view is that unions should have access to the workplace as well from the point where the CAC accepts the application for recognition. This enables the unions to also have access to the workplace for a time closer to the start of the recognition process.

Amendments 215FG, 215FH, 216GA and 216MA seek to remove specific unfair practices from Schedule 6. They seem to seek to allow employers or unions to make an outcome-specific offer or use undue influence with a view to influencing the recognition application. These unfair practices are of long standing and are already set out in the legislation currently in force. The use of undue influence could, for example, include the threat or the use of violence. We therefore see no argument for removing these prohibitions on these unfair practices.

Amendment 216 seeks to reverse changes in the Bill by reinstating the requirement that unions meet the 40% support threshold in addition to a majority in a statutory union recognition ballot. I remind noble Lords that this was a manifesto commitment set out clearly in our plan to make work pay. We are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified so that workers have a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions.

To achieve this, we are removing the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will need only a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win. We believe that the 40% support threshold represents too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented.

Amendment 216KA seeks to ensure that an employer is not prohibited from taking action against the worker for meeting or indicating that they would like to meet unions during the statutory recognition process if the worker has breached any term of their contract of employment. The prohibition that this amendment seeks to amend is carried forward from the existing legislation, where the proposed proviso about the worker not having breached their contract does not appear. While well intentioned, this amendment is not necessary. The prohibition applies only where the employer takes action against the worker solely or mainly on the grounds that they met with the union. It does not apply where the sole or main purpose is another reason, which may, in some circumstances, be a breach of their contract of employment. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Lord.

I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for the debate and for tabling these amendments, but I must ask the noble Lord not to move the amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for revealing to the Committee that we are discussing a fundamental reshaping of workplace democracy, with potentially profound consequences. She is right to explain that that is what the Government are about. The Employment Rights Bill does not just tinker with existing procedures; it carefully dismantles the framework established by previous Labour Governments. Under these reforms, as the Minister just revealed, unions would need to demonstrate just 10% membership support to trigger recognition processes, and that is a threshold that regulations could reduce, after consultation, to an extraordinary 2%.

Let me explain to the Committee what that means in practice. In a bargaining unit of 250 employees, recognition could be initiated by as few as 25 members under the 10% threshold, or potentially just five members if it is reduced to 2%. More troubling still, with the removal of the 40% support requirement, union recognition, granting negotiating rights over all 250 employees, could theoretically be achieved with a single yes vote, provided no one votes against. This is not hyperbole but mathematical reality under the proposed framework.

Perhaps most concerning of all is that, as the Minister, Justin Madders, acknowledged in the other place, there has been no consultation on these fundamental changes. We are being asked to revolutionise industrial relations based on ideology rather than evidence, without hearing from employers, workers or even the Central Arbitration Committee, which must implement these provisions. This lack of consultation betrays a troubling disregard for the complexity of workplace relations and the legitimate interests of all parties: employers, workers who support unionisation, and those who do not.

The amendments I spoke to are not anti-union but pro-democracy. They recognise that legitimate collective bargaining must rest on genuine demonstrable support from the workforce it claims to represent. The current proposals risk creating what I can only describe as recognition by stealth, where small, motivated groups can impose collective bargaining arrangements on entire workforces without meaningful mandate. That is not industrial democracy; it is the antithesis of it.

Consider the worker who joins a company the day after a union application is filed. Under these proposals, they may be excluded from the very process that will determine their workplace representation. Consider the 245 employees in my hypothetical bargaining unit who never joined the union and never voted, yet find themselves bound by collective agreements negotiated on their behalf by representatives they did not choose.

Beyond democratic concerns lie practical ones: the amendments I have tried to persuade the House to accept recognise that businesses must continue to operate during recognition processes that could stretch over nine months. Routine recruitment, staff transfers and ordinary business activities cannot be frozen pending union ballots without severe economic consequences. Yet the Bill as drafted forces exactly this choice: suspend normal operations or face the uncertainty of having legitimate business decisions treated as manipulation.

These reforms occur within a pattern of changes that consistently favour union interests over balanced workplace relations. The lowering of thresholds, the removal of safeguards and the expansion of access rights: each individual change may seem modest, but collectively they represent a fundamental shift in the balance of industrial relations. This is particularly concerning given the Government’s stated commitment to economic growth. How can we simultaneously demand that businesses expand, hire and invest while making their operations subject to collective bargaining arrangements that will lack genuine workforce support? The Government must bear in mind that these Benches will not sit back and allow this to happen. We will return to it at Report, but in the meantime, I will not oppose the clause standing part.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

215A: Schedule 6, page 218, line 17, at end insert—
“3A After paragraph 13 insert—13A “(1) This paragraph applies if—(a) the CAC has received an application under paragraph 11 or 12, and(b) it has given notice to the employer under paragraph 13 of receipt of the application.(2) The employer must comply with the following duties (so far as it is reasonable to expect the employer to do so).(3) The duties are—(a) to give to the CAC, within the relevant period, the specified information in relation to each of the relevant workers; (b) if the relevant workers change as a result of an appropriate bargaining unit being agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC, to give to the CAC, within the relevant period, the specified information in relation to each of those who are now the relevant workers;(c) to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information given to the CAC under paragraph (a) or (b) does not include any information relating to an individual who is not a relevant worker;(d) to inform the CAC, as soon as reasonably practicable, of any worker in relation to whom information has been given to the CAC under paragraph (a) or (b) and who ceases to be a relevant worker (otherwise than by reason of a change mentioned in paragraph (b)).(4) The relevant period is—(a) in the case of the duty in sub-paragraph (3)(a)—(i) the period of 5 working days starting with the day after that on which notice was given to the employer of receipt of the application, or(ii) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension;(b) in the case of the duty in sub-paragraph (3)(b)—(i) the period of 5 working days starting with the day after that on which the bargaining unit is agreed or the CAC’s decision is notified to the employer, or(ii) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.(5) The specified information, in relation to a relevant worker, is—(a) the worker’s name;(b) the worker’s date of birth;(c) the category of worker to which the relevant worker belongs.(6) In the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the relevant workers are—(a) in relation to any time before an appropriate bargaining unit is agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC, those falling within the proposed bargaining unit, and(b) in relation to any time after an appropriate bargaining unit is so agreed or decided, those falling within the bargaining unit agreed or decided upon,but excluding any worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day.(7) In the case of an application under paragraph 12(4), the relevant workers are those falling within the bargaining unit agreed by the parties, excluding any worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day.13B (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—(a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to fulfil a duty mentioned in paragraph 13A(3), and(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress.(2) The CAC may order the employer—(a) to take such steps to remedy the failure as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order, and(b) to do so within such period as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order;and in this paragraph a “remedial order” means an order under this sub-paragraph.(3) If— (a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply with a remedial order, and(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress,the CAC must, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the employer and the union (or unions) that it is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply.(4) A remedial order and a notice under sub-paragraph (3) must draw the recipient’s attention to the effect of sub-paragraphs (5) and (6).(5) Sub-paragraph (6) applies if—(a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply with a remedial order,(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress,(c) the parties have agreed an appropriate bargaining unit or the CAC has decided an appropriate bargaining unit, and(d) in the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the CAC, if required to do so, has decided under paragraph 20 that the application is not invalid.(6) The CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit.(7) For the purposes of this paragraph, an application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress if none of the following has occurred—(a) the withdrawal of the application;(b) the CAC giving notice of a decision under paragraph 14(7) which precludes it from accepting the application;(c) the CAC giving notice under paragraph 15(4)(a) in relation to the application;(d) the CAC giving notice to the union (or unions) of a decision under paragraph 20 that the application is invalid;(e) the CAC giving notice to the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 13B(6), 19F(5), 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5), 22(2) or 27(2) in relation to the application;(f) the holding of any ballot arising from the application.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an employer to provide certain information about the workers in a bargaining unit within 5 working days after the employer is notified of an application for recognition of a trade union. The duty does not include workers who joined the unit after the application was received by the CAC, as they cannot vote in any potential ballot arising from the application.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as I explained at the all-Peers briefing on 8 May, my amendments to Schedule 6 have been made following welcome scrutiny of the Bill. They do not bring forward new policy but instead aim to ensure that the legislation operates more effectively to implement policies already reflected in the Bill. I will speak to all the amendments in this group, which amend Schedule 6 or the government amendments that I tabled.

On government Amendments 216L, 216M, 216U, 216W, 216J, 216N, 216P, 216Q and 216V, there is currently no provision for a sanction on an employer where the employer fails to comply with access arrangements in relation to a worker application for trade union derecognition. Where legislation imposes a duty, there must be a corresponding enforcement mechanism to give effect to that duty. This is why these amendments have been tabled and why they are necessary.

Amendments 216LA, 216LB, 216MZA, 216MZB and 216MZC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, all relate to sanctions on the employer or the union where one of the parties fails to comply with access arrangements generally in relation to a worker application for trade union derecognition. Amendment 216LA, again tabled by the noble Lord Sharpe, would introduce a proportionality test, where the CAC considers applying a sanction on the employer to prevent it campaigning should it be in breach of an access agreement. This amendment is unnecessary. It would make it harder for the CAC to issue an order, as determining how a breach by the employer affected the recognition process would be difficult to establish. It should be sufficient for the CAC to establish that a breach has occurred.

Amendment 216LB would add an additional sanction where a union has breached an access agreement by allowing the CAC to impose a sanction to prevent the union campaigning. This amendment is unnecessary because, in relation to applications by workers seeking derecognition of the union, the CAC has the ultimate sanction of declaring that the union is derecognised, should the union fail to comply with the CAC order.

Amendment 216MZA seeks to clarify that either the union or the worker can enforce a CAC order but not both, the aim being to avoid overlapping enforcement actions. I thank the noble Lord for this amendment, but it is not necessary. The legislation is framed so that the union, the workers or both can enforce a CAC order because we cannot assume, where there is an application by workers for derecognition of a union, that workers and the union would be of the same view. To insist that only one party or the other can enforce the order would deprive the other party of its rights. This shows that the Bill is about striking the right balance between unions, employers and workers. Should both the union and the workers be of the same view, the court could simply join their applications together when considering whether an employer had breached the CAC order. In that event, there would therefore not be overlapping enforcement actions against the employer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am conscious that we have had a slightly disjointed debate; as I said, some of these issues were debated in the previous group and were covered in my opening remarks. I will pick up a few points. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for saying that we are attempting to create a more orderly recognition process, because that is exactly what our amendments are trying to do: to provide the clarity that we felt was missing. I should say that, in addition to the comments I made earlier, we notified all Peers of the Government’s amendments, twice and in writing, and we invited all Peers to a briefing on these on 8 May. All the details have been spelled out in an all-peers letter and supporting annexes. We have therefore been at pains to explain the thinking behind our amendments.

Obviously, most recognition processes go through extremely smoothly, but we believe that this reform is necessary to prevent recruitment for the purposes of thwarting trade union recognition. The process must be fair and not undermined by underhand tactics. Although not all recruitment is underhand, of course, we decided after consultation that the freezing proposed in the Bill is the best way to achieve that fairness. We are attempting to come up with a fair system. Attempting to distinguish between the various intentions of different employers and their recruitment practices is impractical and would be likely to lead to disputes. We felt that this would not be in the interests of employers, the unions or the workers. Of course, there will be changes to the people in the bargaining unit, and where a union is recognised, new workers will be able to take part in subsequent ballots—for example, should a derecognition ballot be held—and other forms of consultation. These restrictions will apply only to that particular element of trade union recognition.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that he wants to introduce a proportionality test. That would make it harder for the CAC to issue an order determining how a breach by the employer affected the recognition process; that would be difficult for it to establish. It should be sufficient for the CAC to establish that a breach has occurred, rather than having to make the more difficult judgment about proportionality. Also, the CAC is very experienced in such things and is well equipped to do so.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we do not object to his amendment only because this has not been done before, but because we wanted to consult before we made a final decision about changing the acceptance threshold from the 10% proposed limit.

I think I have covered most of the other points, either in the letters that we have sent out or in my earlier speeches. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I would be very grateful if the Minister could address the substance of my amendment; 10% or 2% is all very fine, but if it results in the answer of one employee being sufficient, that seems to be not an ideal situation. I would have thought that in seeking to look after small businesses it would be sensible to require a minimum number. I cannot see anything in the structure of the Bill at the moment that allows a minimum number to be applied to this percentage. A percentage can generate one if the company is small, whether it is 10% or 2%. Would it not be a good idea to have something in the Bill, subject to consultation, which allowed in small companies with a small workforce for it not to be just one employee who is triggering this procedure?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

That that would come out in the consultation. I think the noble Lord’s proposal of three is a somewhat arbitrary number. If we are going to do that, there are all sorts of minimum numbers that could be applied. I urge noble Lords to recognise that these are the issues that we will consider in the consultation, but I do not think that the rather arbitrary figure that the noble Lord proposed is appropriate at this time.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I understand that, but it still requires something in the Bill to allow a minimum number. We can return to that matter on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

215B: Schedule 6, page 219, line 8, leave out “after “19F(5)” insert “,” and insert “for “19F(5)” substitute “13B(6), 19F(5),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

215E: Schedule 6, page 220, line 21, after “paragraph” insert “13B(6),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

215F: Schedule 6, page 220, line 35, leave out from “(6)” to end of line 37 and insert “—
(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 15(5) that the application is accepted, or(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where an application under Part 1 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (recognition of trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining) has been made, the period for agreeing terms on which the trade union seeking recognition is to have access to the relevant workers in connection with the application is 20 working days following notification that the union’s application is accepted. The amendment would also enable the Central Arbitration Committee to specify a longer period.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

215G: Schedule 6, page 225, line 29, after “paragraph” insert “13B(6),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

215H: Schedule 6, page 226, line 35, after “paragraph” insert “13B(6),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

215I: Schedule 6, page 227, line 15, after “paragraph” insert “13B(6),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

216A: Schedule 6, page 232, line 36, leave out “after “19F(5),” insert” and insert “for “19F(5),” substitute “13B(6), 19F(5),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

216B: Schedule 6, page 232, line 41, at end insert—
“21A In paragraph 39 (admissibility of applications: same bargaining unit), in sub-paragraph (5), after “40” insert “, 40A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a consequential amendment of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as a result of the amendment made by paragraph 23 of Schedule 6 to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

216C: Schedule 6, page 234, line 30, leave out “after “19F(5),” insert” and insert “for “19F(5),” substitute “13B(6), 19F(5),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

216F: Schedule 6, page 235, line 27, at end insert—
“Changes relevant to appropriateness of bargaining unit
32A (1) Paragraph 67 (admissibility of applications: employer or union believes bargaining unit no longer appropriate) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (2)(c), at the end insert “(but see sub-paragraph (3)).”(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) In a case where the application was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, the CAC must disregard the matter specified in sub-paragraph (2)(c).”32B (1) Paragraph 70 (determination of bargaining unit by CAC) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (3)(c), at the end insert “(but see sub-paragraph (3A)).”(3) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) In a case where the application was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, the CAC may not take into account the matter specified in sub-paragraph (3)(c).”32C In paragraph 75 (questions for CAC to decide where employer believes bargaining unit has ceased to exist), in sub-paragraph (3)(c), at the end insert “(but see paragraph 77(4A)).”32D In paragraph 77 (CAC’s decision as to appropriateness of bargaining unit, etc), after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) In a case where the copy of the notice given to the CAC by the employer under paragraph 74(1) was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, in deciding whether the original unit is no longer appropriate the CAC must disregard the matter specified in paragraph 75(3)(c).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that, where the Central Arbitration Committee has issued a declaration that a trade union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit, and a decision of the CAC as to the continued appropriateness of the bargaining unit is sought under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 before the end of the period of three years beginning with the date of the declaration, the CAC is not to take into account substantial changes in the number of workers employed in the original unit.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

216G: Schedule 6, page 237, line 2, leave out from “(6)” to end of line 4 and insert “—
(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 68(5) or 76(5) that the application is accepted, or (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where an application under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (changes affecting bargaining unit) has been made, the period for agreeing terms on which the trade union concerned is to have access to the relevant workers in connection with the application is 20 working days following notification that the application is accepted. The amendment would also enable the Central Arbitration Committee to specify a longer period.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

216H: Schedule 6, page 243, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
“(iii) if the CAC informs the union (or unions) under paragraph 25(9) (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(4)) of any ballot arising from the application, the CAC acting under paragraph 29 (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(5)) in relation to the ballot.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where the Central Arbitration Committee decides that a complaint about unfair practices in connection with an application under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well-founded, the CAC may make an order under paragraph 81I(3) of that Schedule, or give notice of a ballot under paragraph 81I(5), whether or not a ballot arising from the application has been held.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

216L: Schedule 6, page 249, line 32, leave out from “employer,” to end of line 34 and insert “the CAC may—
(a) refuse the employer’s application under paragraph 106 or 107;(b) order the employer to refrain from any campaigning in relation to an application under paragraph 112.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a sanction where an employer fails to comply with an access agreement under Part 4 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the application for derecognition of a trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit has been made by one or more workers in the unit under paragraph 112 of that Schedule. The Central Arbitration Committee may order the employer not to campaign in relation to the application.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

216M: Schedule 6, page 249, line 38, at end insert—
116EA “(1) This paragraph applies if the CAC has made an order under paragraph 116E(4)(b) in relation to an application under paragraph 112.(2) The worker making the application (or each of the workers making the application) and the union (or each of the unions) are entitled to enforce obedience to the order.(3) The order may be enforced—(a) in England and Wales, in the same way as an order of the county court;(b) in Scotland, in the same way as an order of the sheriff.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32. It enables the worker making the application in question, or the trade union concerned, to enforce an order made against an employer requiring the employer not to campaign in relation to the application.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

216N: Schedule 6, page 251, line 29, leave out “116E(4),” and insert “116E(4)(a),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, we come back to the very key Amendment 217. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, made a compelling argument that all of us should think very carefully before we seek to negative and opt out of a consensus view that was reached—as we understand it from the noble Lord, Lord Burns—unanimously so far as any future members of trade unions were concerned. What could be more compelling than that? We wait with great interest to hear what the Minister is going to say. I personally found the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to be as compelling now as they were in 2016.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling their amendments.

I start by speaking to Amendment 217. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for the constructive engagement that we have had on the topic of political funds in recent weeks and for his thoughtful contributions to this debate. I echo the points a number of noble Lords have made on that. I am grateful for his considerable work in chairing the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee in 2016, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for her work on that committee.

However, the Government’s view is that the political fund changes brought in by the Trade Union Act 2016 had the impact of limiting unions’ ability to raise funds to enable them to campaign on political issues that were important to them. Therefore, as we have been debating, the Bill repeals the requirement for trade unions to opt out their members from contributions to political funds, unless they have expressly requested to opt in. This will mean that new trade union members will be automatically opted in to contributions to a political fund unless they expressly opt out.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, talked about Churchill’s quote on avoiding tit for tat in parliamentary democracies. However, what we are proposing broadly restores the position before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, which had been the position for the previous 70 years. So our proposal is a very long- standing set of propositions. I should also say to noble Lords that the change we are proposing will apply only to new members of a trade union, with the current opt- out status of existing members remaining unchanged.

Several noble Lords have described workers as being “compelled” to make political donations to the Labour Party. This is simply not the case. It remains a decision for each individual trade union member that they are free to make as to whether they wish to contribute to any political fund of a trade union.

The Government have been mindful of the conclusions of the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee, and indeed we have learned lessons from that report. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and others, that we have been careful to draft the Bill to ensure that new members will continue to be notified of their right to opt out on the membership form that they will have to fill in when they join the union. In line with the recommendation in the report of the noble Lord’s committee, the membership form will also have to make it clear that opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership.

This is a substantial change to the legal requirements that existed pre 2016. These changes to the system that existed before 2016 should help to address concerns that trade union members were not always aware of their right to opt out of the political fund. Unions will also be required to send an opt-out reminder notice to members on a 10-year basis.

We have been clear on our intention to substantially repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, as set out in our Make Work Pay plan. Retaining the automatic opt-out, as proposed by this amendment, would frustrate the goal and maintain unnecessary and burdensome requirements on the way that trade unions manage their political funds.

I should have responded earlier to one of the other questions from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about the Government’s impact assessment. The Government’s impact assessment on the repeal of the Trade Union Act set out:

“The return to an ‘opt-out’ option for political fund contributions for new union members with political funds may increase the proportions of new members contributing to the political fund in these unions”.


So we have made an assessment of that.

I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and others, that what we are proposing is clearly not the same as consumers spending billions of pounds each week on unwanted subscriptions due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation routes. What we are proposing here is that a union, which is a collective of workers, and its political fund should be considered in that light. If a union has a political fund, its members have control over how their political fund is spent, through the democratic structures of the union. Unions put considerable effort into raising engagement in their democratic processes, which any member is free to participate in, meaning that they are able to decide on how their political fund is used.

I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Prentis for reminding us of that and indeed giving us some very good examples of how his political fund has been used in campaigning. He and others also made the point that less than half of the unions that have political funds affiliate to the Labour Party. Indeed, only a minority of Labour Party funds at the last election came from unions’ political funds.

I turn to Amendments 221, 222, 223, 223A and 223B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Section 84A specifies that a union must send information notices reminding its members of the right to opt out of contributing to the union’s political fund, should one exist. Amendments 221, 222 and 223 would introduce the requirement on trade unions to send those notices to members every two years, as opposed to every 10 years, as specified in the Bill. We acknowledge that the removal of the 10-year political fund review ballots could reduce awareness among trade union members of their right to opt out of the political fund contributions. This is why we amended the Bill to require that unions send opt-out reminders on a 10-year basis.

The Government believe that 10 years strikes the appropriate balance between maintaining awareness among members of their right to opt out of contributing to a political fund while minimising the administrative and cost burdens on unions of providing such a notification. It also reflects the current arrangements for the 10-yearly review of ballots and recognises that the Bill will ensure that new members will already have been made aware of their right to opt out when they apply for union membership.

Amendment 223A would require unions to issue opt-out information notices that comply with specific requirements. The Bill will require unions to issue opt-out notices that comply with the rules of the union. Unions must provide the certification officer with a copy of their opt-out notice. Members of a trade union will be able to complain to the certification officer if they do not believe that an opt-out notice complies with Section 84A of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. In those circumstances, the certification officer can issue an order to remedy this failure if the complaint is upheld. So this amendment is unnecessary as there are already requirements for opt-out notices that unions must comply with.

Amendment 223B would grant the certification officer the capacity to conduct audits of opt-out notices to monitor compliance with Section 84A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Bill. The legislative framework as amended by the Bill will allow the certification officer to investigate complaints from members about failure to comply with Section 84A, but the power to conduct audits is unnecessary and disproportionate to the rest of the powers of the certification officer, who will continue to hold their powers after the repeal of the Trade Union Act.

Amendment 218, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would require trade union members to confirm their ongoing willingness to contribute to a political fund on an annual basis, and they would need to be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund. As I have mentioned, we believe that requiring unions to issue opt-out reminders to members every 10 years is proportionate and aligns with the current frequency of 10-year review ballots. The Government also believe that, if members have joined a union and are notified of their right to opt out, their decision not to opt out clearly reflects their consent to make political fund contributions. Asking members to reconfirm their willingness to contribute to the union’s political fund on an annual basis would impose an onerous and unnecessary burden on unions and their members. Indeed, members are not currently required to restate on a regular basis their preference to either opt in or opt out of political fund contributions.

Amendment 218B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would alter Section 84 to require unions to provide members with a defined means of opting out of political fund contributions, including a digital option and allowing the certification officer to issue guidance or prescribe minimum technical standards on the opt-out notice. We are already clear in the Bill that members of a trade union are able to be served an opt-out notice via post, email, completion of an electronic form or such other electronic means as may be prescribed. Therefore, we are already making it easy and straight- forward for members to express their decision to opt out should they so desire. The certification officer already issues a set of model rules for political funds, and the rules of every union’s political fund must be approved by the certification officer.

Amendment 218C would create a statutory right for members not to suffer any detriment when deciding to opt out of political fund contributions, and it would allow members to complain to the certification officer where they feel that that right has been breached. Such an amendment is unnecessary, given that Section 82 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already compels unions to inform members in their union rules that they shall not be placed at a disadvantage or disability compared with other union members, nor will they be excluded from benefits, if they decide not to contribute to the political fund. Members can also complain to the certification officer if that rule is breached.

Amendment 218D would require unions to issue an opt-out reminder notice on the day that a member joins the union. Through Clause 59, which amends Section 82 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, we will require unions to inform members of their right to opt out of political fund contributions on any forms, including electronic forms, that members must complete in order to join a union. This requirement will make the need to provide new members with an opt-out notice on joining a union superfluous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Can the Minister clarify—to be absolutely crystal clear—that, by removing Section 32ZB, union members will have absolutely no idea where campaign money is being spent?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thought I answered that: the information on the expenditure of the political fund will still have to be given to the certification officer.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

With great respect, I asked whether union members would have clarity as to where their money was being spent.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am absolutely confident that unions’ accounts, which will include the political funds, will be available to all members in the usual way. I am sure that is a requirement.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

I can inform the noble Lord that unions have to produce an executive report for the membership every year. That is available to all the membership; it is on the union’s website. In most unions, by the rulebook, the executive report is the first thing debated at conference. All the union’s activities and expenditure are described and explained to the membership in that report, including the amount of the political fund and the expenditure of the political fund. It is the same with the international fund and the campaigning fund. This is a requirement, as part of unions’ democratic processes, to make the executive accountable to the membership, and the information will be contained in the executive report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

The noble Lord asked where the members would get the information. That is the question to which I have replied. He is now saying that they are not disclosed in another place, but that was not the question I was answering.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I think we have answered that question in quite a lot of detail now. I hope that noble Lords feel that I have answered these points in sufficient detail.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

We appreciate the detail that the Minister is going into, but a number of questions have not been answered. Can she undertake to write to noble Lords with the answers? Also, can she clarify whether, if a union member fails to opt out of contributing to the political fund on day 1, they could then be bound not to have the opportunity to opt out again for 10 years?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am absolutely confident that union members can opt out at any time, not just every 10 years. It is the reminder that goes every 10 years, rather than the requirement for them to remain.

We have had a very detailed, long debate, and I have attempted to answer all the questions noble Lords have raised. If there are any outstanding issues, I will write. In the meantime, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her Amendment 216YC.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this extensive debate. There are still a number of issues on which there is not agreement, either on the nature of the legislation or the desired effect.

I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I am conscious that this is going over old ground, but he is right to resurrect it and to put his concerns forward. On the exchanges between my noble friend Lady Cash and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, in any legal debate, normally we come up with one winner. However, in this case, it is fair to refer the noble Lord to paragraph 251 of the Bill’s human rights memorandum, where the Government specifically state that:

“Implicit in Article 11 is a right not to contribute to a trade union’s political fund”.


I would be grateful if the Minister would, unusually perhaps, be open to sharing the legal or policy advice on the bracketed portion of that paragraph: that

“the opt-out will take effect on 1 January of the following year”.

That is why my noble friend Lady Cash was pressing the point that continuing to have to pay would not, according to various judgments, be compatible with Article 11.

That said, I am sure that we will return to a lot of this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Where guidance, voluntary standards and sector-specific codes can offer a more proportionate route, we should favour them over legislative prescription. Our shared goal should be to create and foster trust, responsibility and innovation, not to create barriers that could slow progress and reduce opportunity for both business and workers. Having said that, to reiterate the point, I understand the intention behind all these amendments, but I hope we have made our position clear.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendments 148, 149 and 150; the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for his Amendments 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 298, 315 and 316; and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her Amendment 323B. I thank them for generating an important debate on these issues. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for her wise words on this issue.

I will take the amendments in turn. Amendments 148, 149 and 150 seek to introduce mandatory AI risk assessments in the workplace where there are significant impacts on workers, and would place a requirement on employers to consult employees and trade union representatives before implementing AI systems that might significantly impact employment rights and conditions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendments 315 and 316, which would establish an independent commission on AI in the workplace and a project to investigate the potential challenges posed by the algorithmic allocation of work by employers. Amendment 323B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, proposes a government review of the electronic monitoring of workers in the workplace. I agree with her that the cases that she cited were completely unacceptable.

As noble Lords will be aware, under data protection law employers are required to fulfil obligations as controllers if they collect and use their employees’ personal data. This includes the provision of meaningful information to the workers when collecting their personal data if any decisions about them having a legal or similarly significant effect will be based solely on automatic processing. Furthermore, as noble Lords know, the Data (Use and Access) Bill includes a range of safeguards relating to solely automated decision-making with legal and significant effects on individuals. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s plan to make work pay makes it clear that workers’ interests will need to inform the digital transformation happening in the workplace. Our approach is to protect good jobs, ensure good future jobs, and ensure that rights and protections keep pace with technological change.

The Government are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts to examine what AI and new technologies mean for work, jobs and skills. We will promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. The plan’s proposals regarding the use of AI and monitoring technology in the workplace were not included in the Employment Rights Bill to allow time for the full suite of options to be considered with proper consultation, given the novel nature of AI-enabled technology. However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Institute for the Future of Work will be welcome to make an input into that piece of work and the consultation that is going forward. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and all noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into, and we will consult on proposals in the make work play plan in due course.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, beginning with Amendments 289 and 290. The Government agree with him that AI should be used ethically, with proper mechanisms for redress. That is why existing data protection legislation provides safeguards for solely automated decision-making with legal and significant effects on individuals and the use of AI where personal data is processed, including in workplaces.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his Amendment 291, which would require workers and employers to maintain records of data and IP used in AI training and allow independent audits of AI processes. As he knows, this issue is under active consideration in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. A public consultation sponsored by DSIT, the IPO and DCMS on issues relating to copyright and AI, including questions on transparency, closed in February 2025. Transparency in the use of intellectual property material in AI training has been acknowledged in debates and government amendments as a critical issue. I committed only yesterday that the Government will publish a report on the subject within nine months of Royal Assent. I respectfully suggest that it is not helpful to have the same debate running across these two Bills at the same time.

In addressing Amendments 292 and 293 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am happy to reassure him that the UK’s data protection framework already provides robust and effective protection for processing personal data, including for workers. Consent is a lawful ground for processing personal data, but it may not be freely given in employment contexts due to the power imbalance between the employer and the employee. That is why we would not deem it appropriate to restrict the lawful grounds on which data can be processed in this way. In addition, when processing personal data, organisations are required to notify data subjects, such as employees, of matters such as the purposes for data processing, any automated decision-making, any recipients of the data and the data subject’s rights. This includes the right to object to it being processed or to restrict what can be done with it.

Amendments 294, 295 and 296 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, concern the use of automated decision-making. I reaffirm that, under data protection law, employers must fulfil their obligations as controllers if they collect and use employees’ personal data. They must provide meaningful information to workers when collecting their personal data if any decisions about them, having a legal or similarly significant effect, will be based solely on automated processing. This ensures that workers are informed about the logic involved in the automated processing, as well as the significance and envisaged consequences for them.

The reforms in the Data (Use and Access) Bill include a range of safeguards after a decision about an individual has been taken based solely on automated decision-making. I hope that noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady O’Grady, will be reassured that these safeguards include that the individuals receive information about significant decisions, as well as the opportunity to make representations and obtain human intervention.

Further, the Government agree that human intervention in automated decision-making should be carried out competently. The UK’s data protection regulator, the ICO, has existing guidance explaining how requests for human review should be managed. When it comes to high-risk automated decision-making, the Government do not feel it necessary to introduce an outright prohibition of processing of the nature described in Amendment 294. Specific requirements already apply for processing that could result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals. Organisations must carry out an impact assessment and consult the ICO where such an assessment indicates a high risk to individuals in the absence of effective measures.

I turn to Amendment 298, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the creation of a new regulator for the use of AI in recruitment and employment. As the noble Lord may be aware, last year the previous Government published guidance on responsible AI in recruitment, which was developed with stakeholders and relevant regulators such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Government, via the AI Security Institute and the central AI risk function, are already progressing our understanding of AI risks, including AI and its impact on the labour market. This work is being carried out across government, with the involvement of each department where specific sector knowledge is valuable.

I remind the noble Lord that AI is not currently unregulated. Given the cross-cutting nature of AI, the Government believe that it is best regulated at the point of use by the UK’s existing sectoral regulators. As experts in their sectors, they are best placed to understand the uses and risks of AI in their relevant areas. That is why, in response to the AI action plan, the Government have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened.

As set out in our manifesto, the Government are also developing legislative proposals that will allow us to safely realise the enormous benefits of the most powerful AI systems. These proposals will be highly targeted and designed to be future-proofed and effective against this fast-evolving technology. We look forward to engaging further with a wide range of stakeholders on our legislative proposals, including providing clarity on where responsibility for compliance with any new rules will lie.

Noble Lords have provided some interesting areas for consideration, but we are keen that these far-reaching amendments are properly assessed. I reassure noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into. In this respect, I am pleased to note the active engagement between my officials and stakeholders, most recently with the IPPR, whose recent report on surveillance technologies makes a helpful contribution to the awareness and understanding of this context. As already mentioned, we intend to consult on these make work pay proposals in due course. Furthermore, I remind noble Lords that in response to the AI action plan the Government have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened.

Finally, I thank noble Lords for their interest in how AI is being adopted in the workplace and the helpful way in which they have focused on these issues. I reassure my noble friend Lady O’Grady that we are working with the relevant stakeholders to build a strong evidence base to tackle the 21st-century challenges relating to these technologies. Our public consultation will be a crucial part of future-proofing the proposals. I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to making sure that workers’ interests inform the digital transformation taking place in the workplace. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to withdraw his Amendment 148.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

200B: Clause 54, page 72, line 16, at end insert—
“(10A) But regulations under section 84A may not provide for provision made for the purpose of giving effect to an agreement, or an amendment of an agreement, to come into force—(a) before the United Kingdom has ratified the agreement, or(b) in a case where—(i) the provision is for the purpose of giving effect to an amendment of an agreement, and(ii) the United Kingdom would not be required to give effect to the amendment until it had been ratified by the United Kingdom,before the United Kingdom has ratified the amendment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make clear that regulations under new section 84A of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 may not provide for provision made for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement, or to an amendment of an agreement that requires separate ratification, to come into force before the United Kingdom has ratified the agreement or amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has been very interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, talked at some length about delivering a new deal for working people. He ranged fairly freely, so I might, too.

Did noble Lords opposite notice that a report published yesterday showed that there are now 150,000 fewer jobs since the Government took power? It is all very well delivering a new deal for working people, but there will be fewer of them, and this Bill will contribute to that. Noble Lords may not have seen it because it has only just come out, but a British Retail Consortium survey has just been published which shows—I am sure we will return to this theme next week—that half of retail directors now think they will reduce hiring, and 70% say the ERB will have a negative impact on their business.

Frankly, I am slightly staggered at the noble Lord’s Amendment 260, which seeks to return us to various EU standards, given that EU unemployment is, of course, generally significantly higher than it is in this country. Is that what the noble Lord aspires to? I am sure he does not, but that is how it looks.

The proposal to create statutory joint industrial councils raises significant concerns, not least the proliferation of new public bodies at a time when government and regulators are already stretched. Each of these councils would require administrative infrastructure, governance mechanisms, sector-specific expertise and ongoing support from both ACAS and the Secretary of State. This approach risks duplicating existing frameworks. We already have voluntary collective bargaining structures, recognised trade unions and sectoral engagement mechanisms in many industries. Superimposing a statutory model could complicate rather than enhance industrial relations, particularly in sectors where informal or local agreements are working effectively.

There is also the issue of flexibility. The statutory model risks creating rigid sectoral definitions that may not reflect the realities of modern hybrid or cross-sector employment. The labour market today does not always fit neatly into traditional categories, and it is unclear how the Secretary of State, even with ACAS guidance, would determine sectors without inadvertently excluding or misclassifying employers and workers. We must not overlook the potential for conflict or delay. Setting up these councils, negotiating procedures and achieving consensus across large and diverse sectors could slow down progress on pay and conditions, rather than speeding it up.

That is not an argument against collective bargaining. It is an argument for targeted, effective solutions that reflect the complexity of today’s economy, not a revival of structures drawn from legislation that is nearly half a century old. The world has changed. Where stronger bargaining is needed, let us work through existing mechanisms and invest in enforcement, rather than defaulting to the creation of statutory councils that may struggle to function as intended. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Barber of Ainsdale for Amendments 203, 257, 260 and 322. I hope, despite my noble friend Lord Hendy’s concerns, that he recognises that this Bill is a major step forward in delivering a new deal for working people, exactly in the way our manifesto and the King’s Speech set out. I would also say that this is only the first step in our proposals, as we have made clear all along that the “make work pay” programme will, over time, roll out to a whole set of other issues we have flagged up as we have gone through this debate.

Turning to Amendment 203 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, I am pleased to be having the debate on sectoral collective bargaining and to set out the Government’s commitment to supporting it through the introduction of fair pay agreements in social care and the school support staff negotiating body, which we have just debated in detail. We want to ensure that the labour market works for everyone. A key aspect of this is allowing workers to participate in collective bargaining to improve pay and conditions. However, where labour markets are operating effectively or where existing collective agreements are working well, the Government recognise that sectoral collective bargaining may not be the best solution—I think this was the point the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was making.

The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to establish statutory joint industrial councils in unspecified areas without parliamentary scrutiny or appropriate safeguards. We are committed to starting with fair pay agreements in the social care sector to address the stark and specific issues in the vital sector, which we have already debated. As part of our ongoing policy work, we are exploring how future sectors could benefit from sectoral collective bargaining. However, we first want to learn from this process to improve our policy approach and ensure that future sectoral collective bargaining arrangements most effectively respond to the complexities of the modern workforce. In the meantime, I assure my noble friend that we are committed to supporting sectoral collective bargaining and recognise the positive contribution it can make to the British economy.

Amendment 257 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy would add duties of promoting collective bargaining to ACAS’s remit. An existing ACAS code of practice provides guidance on the disclosure of information to trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. I have listened carefully to what my noble friend said, and I am afraid we will have to disagree on this. We do not support the amendment; we think it is important that ACAS maintains its independence and impartiality between employers and unions. We are concerned that the current status could be compromised by this amendment.

On Amendment 260 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, we have debated the school support staff negotiating body and the social care negotiating bodies. A benefit of these sectoral bodies will be broad sectoral agreements. We expect that many workers in these sectors will be able to benefit from collective agreements for the first time. We intend to learn from the first fair pay agreement process in social care and the SSSNB, before considering rolling out agreements in other areas, as I have said.

Additionally, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult on and bring forward this action plan within six months. It is important that such policy matters have enough time for consideration, and we are keen that employer organisations and trade unions prioritise the consultations committed to in Make Work Pay, which will follow Royal Assent to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling Amendments 205, 206, 207 and 208. I acknowledge that the noble Lord introduced the amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness. I will also address the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, on their opposition to Clause 55 standing part of the Bill.

I am sorry that the tone of the debate has somewhat deteriorated this afternoon. I thought that we were having a reasonable, grown-up conversation until now. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, because he admitted that what he was saying were his prejudices—and that is certainly what it sounded like. He was talking about a period 50 years ago, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said, the world of work has changed significantly since then. As we absolutely acknowledge, we now have outdated employment processes and huge levels of exploitation, including a climate where it is not easy or encouraged to be a member of a union. That is one of the issues that we are seeking to address here.

I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who tried to give us a talk about democracy, that this Government were elected with a huge win on a manifesto to introduce the legislation that we have before us today.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, but I do not know that a mandate of 33% of the electorate is indeed a very strong mandate for overturning the reforms that have brought stability to the workplace.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We can have a long discussion about that, but if we are talking about mandates, it may well be argued that probably Baroness Thatcher did not have that kind of mandate either. The fact is that we won that election with a huge majority, and I am very sorry that the party opposite lost so badly. They might want to reflect a little bit more on why that was, because some of the issues that noble Lords have been talking about in relation to the state of our economy are exactly what we inherited from the previous Government. Those issues are absolutely the result of that Government’s economic policies and not ours. We have been taking great steps to improve the situation. While I am on that issue, I should say that, as a result of this Government’s actions, we had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 at the start of this year; we have done three trade deals in three weeks, with India, the US and the EU; interest rates have been cut four times—

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The Minister is aware, of course, that interest rates are independently managed by the Bank of England.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I make my case. The only reason those interest rates were cut was that our economy has been improving. Some £63 billion of private investment was announced at the investment summit last year. Introducing this Bill within 100 days will boost protections and quality of work for the lowest-paid, raising living standards across the country and creating opportunities for all.

I turn to the actual amendments. Amendments 205 and 207, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would introduce exemptions to this measure based on the size of the business. The new duty on employers to inform all employees of the right to join a union is a key part of the Government’s wider commitment to strengthen workers’ voices in the workplace, enhancing their representation and ultimately improving working conditions through increased trade union membership and participation. Making exemptions of this kind risks creating a two-tier system in which some workers benefit from this important information while others do not, based purely on the size of their employer. We are committed to striking a fair and proportionate balance, ensuring that workers are aware of their rights without placing undue burdens on employers.

The statement will be provided at the start of employment, alongside the written statement of particulars, which employers are already required to give under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and on a prescribed basis. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that we do not believe that this is a particularly significant extra burden to justify exempting certain employers because of their size, because they already have to give that information anyway.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked about the frequency. We will consult on the specific details, such as the frequency, manner, form and content of the statement before it is outlined in secondary legislation, and I can let noble Lords know that that will be via the negative procedure. We will particularly encourage input from both businesses and unions of all sizes to share their views.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

The Minister just referred to the negative procedure. Is that a final decision? Given that the Bill takes so much power to make a series of important decisions by statutory instrument, I think the general expectation would be that such an important decision would be made by affirmative resolution. Would she perhaps contemplate whether that might be the better solution?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that introduction, because I was going to go on to say that the Government think that the powers taken in Clause 55 are necessary and proportionate. Indeed, the Delegated Powers Committee said that

“it is heartening that in a Bill with so many delegated powers”

it had

“only found four on which to raise concerns”.

Clause 55 was not one of those four, and we will of course respond to the committee’s recommendations in due course.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

While we are considering what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded, I recall that the last time I raised the use of the Henry VIII powers, the Minister said that this Committee would see her draft implementation plan, to which my noble friend referred just a short time ago. We have not yet seen that plan, and a lot of businesses are very concerned about the uncertainty that is being created by not knowing, certainly by now, when these various powers are going to be brought into effect. Will she give some timescale by which we will see the implementation plan, if only in draft?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I know we have discussed the implementation plan several times now, and I can assure noble Lords that we are working at pace to finalise that. I do not think it would be helpful to see it in draft or imperfect form. We want people to have a categorical road map which shows the way forward. We absolutely understand that businesses need to see that; we are working on it. I am very confident that when businesses see it, they will be reassured that none of the things that we are proposing in this legislation will be rushed through. They will have time to prepare for it—I think we had a debate about this earlier. We know that businesses need time to prepare, we are absolutely aware of that, and we are going to make sure that they have it.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I just wanted to clarify something the Minister said. I think I heard her say that it would be done by negative resolution. Does that apply to all of Part 4 or specifically for every element of Clause 55?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My answer was specifically about Clause 55.

Amendment 206, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would remove the compulsory element of the proposals, making it optional for employers to inform workers of their rights to join a union. To be clear, this is not about necessitating union membership but about ensuring that workers are aware of their rights and can make an informed decision about whether to engage. We want to empower workers to take a more active role in protecting their rights, and, where they choose, to participate in collective bargaining to improve their working conditions. Access to clear and accurate information is fundamental to that. This amendment would seriously weaken this measure by allowing employers to simply ignore the duty, defeating its policy intent entirely. It is vital that the right to union membership is made accessible to all workers as intended, that it is communicated regularly, and that employers are under a firm obligation to do so.

Amendment 208, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would remove the requirement for employers to issue a statement of trade union rights on a prescribed basis. We are legislating for ongoing reminders of the right to join a trade union to reflect the reality of the workplace. New employers may miss information at the start of employment or change roles over time within the same organisation. Limiting the duty to the start of employment would also exclude existing staff, who equally deserve access to that information.

This statement of the right to trade union membership is important in fostering worker engagement and meaningful dialogue between unions and employers. Ongoing reminders are a key part of this measure. The Secretary of State will be able to set the frequency of this notification. This will be, as I have said, outlined in secondary legislation, subject to public consultation, and we invite interested parties to provide us with their views on this matter when we launch the consultation.

On the wider issue, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, urged us to consult more. I can assure him that these proposals have been subject to extensive consultation, and we are continuing to consult on them. I can also tell the noble Lord that we had a very constructive meeting with the Federation of Small Businesses.

Finally, I turn to the clause itself. Clause 55 introduces a new legal duty on employers to inform workers of their right to join a union. Employers will be required to issue this statement at the start of employment, alongside the written statement of particulars, which I commented on earlier. There is currently no requirement in law for employers to notify their workers of the right to trade union membership. This lack of awareness may be contributing to the falling union membership and reduced worker participation in collective bargaining that we have been discussing. This duty intends to address this gap, ensuring that workers are better informed of this right and helping to strengthen the collective voice in the workplace and enhance their representation. This delivers on the Government’s commitment to improve working conditions through increased trade union membership and participation. Specific details of this measure, including the frequency, form, content and manner of the notification, will be set out in secondary legislation, as I have said. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and I urge that Clause 55 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Just to press the point on the implementation plan, I am sure the Minister saw yesterday that the OECD downgraded growth forecasts for this country. Obviously, it blamed the global trade picture for a lot of that downgrade, but it also talked about business certainty in this country—or the lack of it. She herself has just acknowledged that businesses need certainty. The OECD is saying this, this is not just us alleging it. Will she please commit to picking up the pace when it comes to delivering this implementation plan and delivering it as soon as possible?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am fully aware that it would help to see the implementation plan and, as I said, we are working at pace to get it to your Lordships as soon as we can.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this very interesting debate. I think you always know when your arguments are hitting home when you are admonished by the Front Bench about tone. It usually means that you are hitting the target. I particularly thank my noble friends for the typically erudite and forensic analysis of Clause 55 by my noble friend Lady Coffey, the excellent real-world experience articulated by my noble friends Lord Ashcombe and Lord Leigh, and, of course the passion, from real-world experience, of my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea.

I do not want to get into a historical discussion, because the hour is late, but Margaret Thatcher was mentioned. Margaret Thatcher never won an election with the puny mandate that this Government had, because what we are seeing is a counterrevolution in favour of the trade unions based on 20% of the electorate, a turnout of 66% and a 34% poll. That is no kind of mandate. In fact, it is a post-dated cheque to the trade unions paid for by the British taxpayer and working people of this country.

There is news from Birmingham, incidentally, as Birmingham was mentioned earlier. Four hundred Unite members have just voted today to carry on striking all the way to Christmas. This is an interesting quote from Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, known to our collective trade union alumni. I do not know what the collective term is: union barons, perhaps. She said:

“It beggars belief that a Labour government and Labour council is treating these workers so disgracefully … Unite calls on the decision makers to let common sense prevail in upcoming negotiations”.


The reason I quote that is that I have to say very gently to the Government Benches: be careful what you wish for. The 1974 Labour Government was destroyed by the trade unions’ actions in the winter of discontent of 1978-79. If the Government proceed with this Bill unamended, they run the risk that that unintended consequence might also be the end of their Government. I would not wish that to be the case, of course, because I think that they sincerely believe they are doing the right thing. Nevertheless, it is a risk.

Let us step back from the historical discussions that we have had in what has been an interesting debate. We are being asked to vote for a clause in primary legislation with huge delegated powers in the hands of Ministers. That brings me to a very interesting quote, that

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”.

That was beautifully put, by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in his Bingham lecture, proving that he is not always wrong about everything.

We have tabled these amendments because this clause does not give us the detail, it will have unintended consequences, and it will have a real-world impact on small businesses in particular. It is not about bashing the trade unions. I would concede, as someone who was a trade union member, that the trade unions have done a brilliant job in terms of member welfare, insurance schemes, et cetera, over the years. They are a force for good generally, but the measures in the Bill far too easily tip the balance against businesses trying to earn a living, in favour of unions, by repealing all the legislation from 1979 and 1992.

The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, are doing a difficult job and defending a sticky wicket, but I do not think that the Minister really engaged with the arguments. I hope that on Report there is an opportunity to alter this clause, to make it a little less onerous and burdensome to businesses while keeping the spirit of the legislation for workers. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49F, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49G, and do propose Amendments 49H, 49J, 49K, 49L and 49M in lieu of Amendment 49F—

49G: Because the proposed statement to the House of Commons is unnecessary, given the economic impact assessment and report which are required to be published and laid before Parliament by Commons Amendments 45 and 46, and because it is not appropriate to require the Secretary of State to publish draft legislation within three months of publishing those documents.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment to the Bill
49M: After Clause 134, insert the following new Clause—
“Progress statement
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement setting out what progress has been made towards the publication of—
(a) the economic impact assessment required by section (Economic impact assessment), and
(b) the report required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems).
(2) The duty in subsection (1) does not apply where the economic impact assessment and the report have been published before the end of the period described in that subsection.”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. Following on from colleagues discussing this in the other place yesterday, we are back here again today to debate this issue of AI and copyright. Your Lordships will see on today’s Order Paper amendments from the Government providing legislative underpinning to the commitments I made on Monday. My letter to noble Lords yesterday set out in detail what these amendments do alongside everything else the Government have done to respond to noble Lords’ concerns. I hope this helped to dispel the feeling that the Government are not listening and have not compromised. It also puts beyond any doubt the Government’s views on the issues at hand, especially the issue of transparency.

The solution to these issues is what we have said all along. There is no disagreement with our plan to finish analysing the consultation processes, convene technical working groups, make a Statement to the House on progress, and then bring forward reports setting out our proposals and our economic impact assessment of them. I am glad to make amendments to the Bill to give this plan legislative effect. This is consistent with our approach of hearing concerns, responding to them and moving the Bill forward. I urge noble Lords from across the House to support them.

The only issue on today’s Order Paper with which there is any disagreement is the question of whether the Bill should mandate the future production of a draft Bill, its contents and it going through the pre-legislative scrutiny process. I hope that noble Lords agree with what I put in my letter to them: we cannot, should not and must not prejudge the outcome of these processes. Despite assertions to the contrary, good government does not assume what 11,500 detailed responses to its consultation will say.

Our plan—to consult properly and finish the job, carrying out the processes as now mandated in the Bill and then bringing forward legislation that both Houses of Parliament can have confidence in—is surely the right one. A draft Bill is not a plan to solve the problem. Indeed, it could have the consequence of delaying the very reforms that your Lordships have called for. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will support the amendments in my name, but not continue to insist on Amendment 49F today.

Before I finish, I will address the question of double insistence. Today, noble Lords have been presented with a question of whether to go even further than we have come so far during ping-pong and choose whether they want the entire Bill to fall if the Government do not accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I sincerely hope that it does not come to this, for it would mean that noble Lords are willing to countenance the unprecedented: trying to collapse a Bill that does nothing to weaken copyright law, but which does deliver many of the elected Government’s manifesto commitments—for example, a data preservation process supporting bereaved parents; new offences for intimate image deepfake abuse; smart data schemes such as open banking that businesses have been crying out for; and a framework for research into online safety.

This would mean that noble Lords are willing to try to collapse a Bill that the elected Government are using to grow the economy by £10 billion, the number one mission from their manifesto and election campaign; that makes vital, uncontroversial and necessary amendments to our national security and policing laws to keep us safe; that will save 140,000 hours of NHS time per year, with the potential to reduce medication errors by 6.8 million and prevent 20 deaths per year; and that the elected House has voted overwhelmingly in favour of four times. I urge noble Lords to choose instead the Government’s plan to solve this issue and vote with the Government today. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Obviously, I do not know how matters today are going to conclude, but should the outcome go against them I urge the Government to strain every sinew, listen to the House, work closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and find a way to make it happen to end this chaotic period of uncertainty that helps nobody. That said, as I said on Monday, as a responsible Opposition we do not wish to engage in protracted ping-pong and will ultimately simply respect the will of the elected Chamber.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today and throughout this process. Colleagues have spoken consistently with passion and eloquence, as befitting the many, varied and celebrated interests that noble Lords have in the creative industries. As I have said on numerous occasions and feel I do not need to repeat, this Government are absolutely committed to the creative industries. We want them to flourish, and we have a plan to achieve this.

I am grateful to noble Lords who took the time to read the letter I sent to Members of your Lordships’ House last night, which, I hope, sets out more clearly our approach to these important issues. Given our debates to date and the letter, I will spare the House a full repetition of our position. However, our concern remains that any legislation mandated now, whether a draft Bill or regulations, will prejudge all the work required and result in laws that are not fit for purpose.

Contrary to some of the suggestions we have heard today, the Government have been listening carefully throughout the Bill’s passage. The Government have set out a plan to deal with this issue which includes additional compromises that respond to specific concerns raised by noble Lords in this House which have been put on the face of the Bill and would be strengthened if the House supports Motion A. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brennan that once the working groups get going it is vital that the creative sector has a voice in them. Of course it is our intention to deliver that.

The next step, which I know that noble Lords are keen to take, is simply to get on with it. The quicker the Bill is passed, the sooner we can put more resources into resolving the issues that noble Lords have raised. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that we need to work together to find a solution that is appropriate for the UK, not for other countries, which will obviously have their own agendas. I also make it absolutely clear that there are no side deals in any agreement in the trade deal with the US.

Unless and until we reach Royal Assent we are basically stuck in limbo. We need to move on. I know noble Lords have spoken in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and she herself has called for action now, but we believe that the noble Baroness’s current amendment as drafted would take a long time to implement. It is intended to take effect after the proposals that we have set out in the Bill.

We have heard concerns about expediency and have tested how quickly we can pave a clear way forward, ensuring that all elements are considered in the round. I say to my noble friend Lord Brennan that of course we are aware of the urgency of this. This is why we will publish the economic impact assessment and the report the Bill requires within nine months. This will ensure that we are ready to act as soon as possible while also having sufficient time to consider all views and options. If the report and economic impact assessment are not published within six months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will lay before Parliament a Statement setting out progress towards their publication.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked for clarification on the copyright situation. The Government are clear that copyright must be complied with when copies are made to train AI models. This means that licences are required from copyright owners but in some circumstances a copyright exception may apply. If copying takes place in other jurisdictions, that country’s laws will apply. The law in this area is complex and disputed and it is not appropriate for us to comment on the litigation which noble Lords will know is currently before the courts. We recognise calls for greater legal clarity and this is why we have consulted and are now developing options for the way forward.

Noble Lords have raised the constitutional issue that we are dealing with today. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said in her letter that the Bill is unusual as it started in the Lords and that, if the Lords insisted, the Government would have to accept the amendment or let the Bill fall. I will make our position absolutely clear: the primacy of the House of Lords applies equally to Bills that start in the Lords and in the Commons. This primacy is necessary for a democratic society. The views of MPs elected by the public should be respected, and the House of Commons has expressed its view on the issue of AI and copyright three times already.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that, if the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is carried, it will not scupper the Bill, but rather the Bill will go back to the Commons, where the Commons can provide an amendment in lieu. Therefore, the ball would be in the Commons’ court and the Government’s court; it will not scupper the Bill if we vote for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

Could the Minister also just clarify her point about the primacy of the House of Commons? She just seemed to imply the opposite.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We regard the primacy of the House of Commons as absolutely paramount. As I have stated, at the end of the day if we are not careful, we will get into a situation—which I think the noble Baroness was beginning to raise—where we will not be able to accept the primacy of the House of Commons. To us, that is absolutely paramount.

Passing the Bill will also let us get on with delivering the other measures it contains, many of which have been championed by noble Lords for some time— and I welcome the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for all of these. The Bill has had broad support, which was enjoyed in the last Session too, and that is testament to the work done by this Government and the previous one on these issues, and why both our party and the Opposition advocated for the Bill and its policies during the general election.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, have spoken in this and other debates about the good that these measures will do. I am glad to recall her warm support during our Second Reading debate for the data preservation measures for coroners to preserve data when a child dies, and her wishes for the Bill’s swift passage to see that become law, and I agree with her. I also recall the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, saying that this version of the Bill was much improved from the last, and that as we have done so much scrutiny of its predecessor, we should be able to make good progress.

These policies and the significant economic benefits they will bring are why the elected House has voted in favour of the Bill’s continued passage four times in a row. It has exercised its choice. We now have to get on with the job—for the bereaved parents, the victims of deepfake intimate image abuse, the charities that want to use the soft opt-in and the businesses keen to benefit from the use of smart data and all the many and various benefits of the measures and manifesto commitments in the Bill. I urge your Lordships to accept the Government’s new amendments and let the Bill pass into law, rather than moving us to the precipice where we could face collapsing it entirely.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

I am very disturbed that the Minister says there is a potential for the Bill to collapse, with all the important measures within it. If the other place chooses to collapse the Bill, can she tell me which Cabinet Minister or adviser will take responsibility for what is clearly an unprecedented legislative and political failure?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I keep saying, the primacy of the House of Lords—sorry, the House of Commons—is absolutely vital.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Noble Lords can laugh about this, but it is a really serious issue that is absolutely fundamental to our democracy. The House of Commons has made its position clear on a number of occasions now, and it is not right that the House of Lords continues to try and overturn that.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I have listened with great respect to the Minister, but she has stated repeatedly that we are going to deprive the country of all the other measures in the Bill that are accepted. That is not the case. It is not necessary for the Bill to collapse at all; what is necessary is for the Government to take some positive action. It would be appropriate for her to accept that in her closing remarks and confirm that, if this House votes in favour of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the Bill will not collapse.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I have said, there is a danger that the Bill will collapse if the Lords continues in its current form, and that is not what any of us want. I hope that everybody here accepts the primacy of the House of Commons, which is absolutely fundamental to our democracy.

Lastly, I give my thanks to the public servant whose character and motives were questioned in the House on Monday. Public servants are not able to defend themselves when attacked, and instead of criticism they deserve our thanks. I want to take the opportunity to recognise their long record of distinguished and dedicated public service, not just under this Government but also the previous ones.

At times, it has felt like this debate has indeed brought us to the edge of reason. I hope that today your Lordships’ House will unite around our approach and the fundamental constitutional principles by supporting Motion A in my name.

Ofcom: Protection of Children Codes

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the draft Protection of Children Codes published by Ofcom on 24 April under the Online Safety Act 2023.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome Ofcom’s protection of children codes, which will make a substantial difference to the online experience of children. From July, platforms will be required to use measures to protect children—such as highly effective age assurance and filtering out harmful algorithms—or face enforcement action. We will monitor implementation carefully, and Ofcom has said that it is clear that the codes are iterative. However, the codes are the foundation, not the limit, and we will not hesitate to strengthen the law further to ensure the safety of our children, if needed.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, has drawn these codes to the attention of your Lordships’ House. The committee has particular concerns, especially around the potential regulatory gaps in the codes produced by Ofcom because they do not require regulated services to address all the risks identified in the risk assessments. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with Ofcom’s interpretation of the Online Safety Act? Will her department bring forward an urgent amendment to the Act to close this loophole and require regulated services to mitigate all the risks to children online—which Ofcom itself has comprehensively evidenced in its research—that those services might identify in their own risk assessments?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. I should make it clear that Ofcom’s codes will improve child safety online and go beyond similar regimes elsewhere to achieve this. By regularly conducting thorough risk assessments, services can proactively identify emerging threats and adapt safety measures accordingly. The Government’s measures in the code allow Ofcom to hold companies accountable for their overall management of risks to children. Ofcom will monitor implementation of risk assessment processes and code measures, building on its approach where needed. The Government will separately monitor whether legislation needs to be strengthened.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, Ofcom has identified live-streaming as a functionality which causes harm. There is nothing in the codes requiring the tech companies to mitigate this risk. Does the Minister agree that such an urgent issue, which cannot wait until Ofcom’s additional safety measures consultation, should be included in the present children’s codes?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Viscount has raised an important issue. Ofcom has recognised that live-streaming can pose specific risks to children and will consult on proposals to reduce these risks, alongside a number of other measures. It will publish this consultation before the Summer Recess. The Act and Ofcom’s codes are clear: services are required to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children encountering primary priority content, including pornography. That will extend to live-streaming services that allow pornography.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my ombudsman interest as set out in the register. The SLSC questioned, quite rightly, how practical it is for children to complain about harmful content and noted that it was unclear what further action children could take if a complaint was rejected by a service provider. How will Ofcom and the Government ensure that complaint mechanisms are truly practical, accessible and designed with a children-first approach? What independent recourse will children have if their complaints about harmful content are rejected by service providers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord has done in promoting ombudsman services. He will know that the codes and the Act require that all service providers provide a named person to receive any complaints and for them to be able to demonstrate that they are acting upon them. We are aware that we need to monitor how effectively that is working, and, if needs be, we will supplement that with other measures. For the time being, we want to see that the named person and a proper complaints process is working as it should be.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, the Online Safety Act sets out in Section 1 that regulated services must be

“safe by design, and … designed and operated in such a way that … a higher standard of protection is provided for children than for adults”.

This requirement is the result of an amendment that was brought forward in this place. However, currently, Ofcom’s codes do not go far enough to actually bring this into practice. Will my noble friend confirm that the Government will urgently amend the Online Safety Act to introduce a statutory code of practice for safety by design, to ensure that Ofcom delivers on the expectations of Parliament in this important area?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, safety by design is an absolutely fundamental principle of the Online Safety Act, and the Government have reiterated that in our strategic priorities which we have set out to Ofcom. We expect all platforms to implement safety by design and we will monitor the effectiveness of that.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, this Chamber provides important scrutiny to the work that Ofcom does, but it is worth noting that the Online Safety Act was a mammoth Bill and that Ofcom has undertaken an absolutely mammoth task in being ready to carry forward this regulation. Does the Minister agree with me that Ofcom is fast becoming the most important and effective regulator in this field, and that all the people who have worked to make this happen deserve our sincere congratulations for the work they have achieved so far?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Lord’s comments. He is absolutely right: this has been a mammoth exercise, and I am so pleased that we are now beginning to see the fruits of it. There are huge numbers of people working in Ofcom on this important issue. We very much hope that, with the implementation of the illegal content codes and now the children’s codes, there will be a step change in the way that everybody—particularly children—engages with platforms online. To give noble Lords a flavour of how this will affect children, the law means that platforms must protect children from seeing suicide, self-harm, pornography and violent content. This will make a real difference to children. I am very excited to see that platforms operate this, and it is important that Ofcom plays its part.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The New Zealand Education Minister says that its school smartphone ban has led to more engagement and less cyberbullying. With Ofcom warning that harmful content often reaches children through algorithmic feeds on smartphones, can the Minister give one positive reason why we should allow smartphones to continue to be used in the classroom?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as I think I have said here before, we are carrying out research to look at the implications of the use of smartphones for children. The Department for Education’s mobile phones in schools guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day, including during lessons, transitions and breaks. The Government expect all schools to take steps in line with this guidance to ensure that mobile phones do not disrupt pupil learning, but we still need to learn the absolute lessons. The noble Lord raises important points about algorithms, and we hope to come back to noble Lords and Parliament with further details of how we are going to take this work forward.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has set out the progress that has been made since the Bill became an Act. That is to be welcomed, but, my goodness me, some of the stuff that is available to young people should shock and disturb us and keep us all the time on the front foot to do all that we can. Our children—children across the world—deserve protection from this awful stuff.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right about that. As part of my role, I have seen horrendous material that I do not think anybody—not adults and certainly not children—should see. We are determined to get this right and to be forward-looking, because anything that we do in legislation needs to be fit for the next generation as well. There is no point legislating just for the now; we need to legislate for the future. We are very aware of that. We are continuing to talk to Ofcom and other stakeholders about how we can take this work forward. We are determined to make this a safe place for children to grow up and thrive.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the research that the Government are doing on the impact of phones on children. The research is overwhelming on the impact of screen use on early years development for children, but there appears to be no specific guidance to help parents navigate that. What are the Government doing to ensure that parents of preschool children get proper, age-appropriate guidance on the use of screens?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. We are looking at what further advice we can give to parents. This is a sensitive issue and, as the noble Baroness will understand, we must be careful in how we raise these issues. We all understand that children often have a very different experience and a detailed knowledge of how smartphones work from their parents, so we have a role in education. Obviously, media literacy is an important part of that, but we are looking again at what further guidance we can give to parents.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49E.

49E: Because the Amendment would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to start today’s debate by repeating some of the sentiments set out by the Secretary of State before the Whitsun Recess, when the elected House once again overturned the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to the Bill. I am sure many noble Lords will have read these in Hansard, but for those who have not, I urge them to do so, as they were well received. The single remaining issue—AI and copyright—is one I know that many noble Lords care deeply about, and with good reason. It is imperative that we become a country where our people can enjoy the benefits and the opportunities of both AI and our world-leading creative industries, a country whose economy thrives and which remains innovative, creative and, very importantly, fair.

As I have said before, we must get this right to ensure that we promote innovation and creativity, transparency and access, recognition and reward. The Secretary of State noted his regret about how the consultation and the Bill collided and how, by indicating a preferred option, the Government appeared to have prematurely taken a side in this important debate.

I also want to ensure that noble Lords have complete clarity on our approach and how it has always been separate from the data Bill, which includes no provision to change anything in copyright law. To reiterate, the Government have an open mind about the outcome of the consultation. We will listen intently to the views of the many people who have responded to it, many of whom have interesting ideas which deserve full consideration.

It is completely understandable that noble Lords have sought to use this Bill to set a direction of travel for future regulation in this area. They are right to have asked the questions that they have. I hope that the additional assurances that I will give today provide confidence that despite continuing to resist the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we truly want to solve these issues and have a plan to do so.

Outside the legislative process, the Government will continue to do our utmost to analyse and resolve the issues. We are studiously considering the thousands of responses to the consultation. The Secretary of State is setting up expert working groups to bring people together from technology and the creative sectors to chart the way forward in a full range of areas, with a particular emphasis on transparency and technical standards. We are committed to listening—genuinely listening—to a broad range of views. The noble Baroness’s assertion that government only ever listens to big tech is as unfair as it is unfounded. The Secretary of State and Minister Bryant have met representatives of the creative industries as well as Members of both Houses to hear from them. We will of course make sure that noble Lords are informed about the progress and outcomes of the working groups at every stage possible, not least as I am sure that there will be many questions tabled on this by noble Lords. I look forward to answering them.

As noble Lords know, we have committed in the Bill to report on economic impacts and the use of copyright in the development of AI systems within 12 months of Royal Assent. This will be an important staging post as we move forward with the consultation process and subsequent regulatory change. Today, I want to give some further reassurances on the Government’s trajectory and commitments to speed and parliamentary accountability.

First, I can confirm that the Government’s report on the use of copyright work in the development of AI systems will address two additional areas, specifically highlighted by the noble Baroness’s original amendment: how to deal with models trained overseas; and how rules should be enforced and by whom. The first issue has been raised in this House, including by my noble friend Lord Brennan and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. The latter is an issue that has invoked financial privilege in the other place, but where it is right for the Government to put forward their view.

Secondly, to reflect our shared view that these issues need to be resolved quickly, we will publish an economic impact assessment—and the report required by the Bill—within nine months of Royal Assent, rather than 12. This will ensure that we are ready to act as soon as possible while also having sufficient time to consider all views and options. Thirdly, if we are not in a position to publish final documents within six months of the Bill’s Royal Assent, the Secretary of State will lay before Parliament a report setting out the progress being made towards their publication. I hope that this gives noble Lords the assurances that they need that our work will not be done behind closed doors. We want to make progress in a manner that involves Parliament and relevant stakeholders.

As a final word, I know that this debate has been heated at times. The wider world looks to us in this place to debate with courtesy—“to disagree agreeably”, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said in response to last summer’s King’s Speech. I therefore ask noble Lords to consider their words today, to avoid the language of betrayal and conflict and to try to find a measured and civil tone through which we can trace our path forward. Finding the right way forward means dealing with the issues together and coming up with workable, considered solutions. It is in nobody’s interest if we rush towards the wrong conclusion or ineffective regulation.

Time and again in previous Sessions, promises were made and legislation rushed through only for us to go through the entire process again when it was found to be inadequate. We said that we would legislate better and we are determined to do so. That means consulting properly, following the additional deliberative processes that I have set out, and then bringing forward legislation that both Houses of Parliament and both sides of the argument can have confidence in. I urge noble Lords on all sides of this House: let us get on with sorting out this issue, rather than creating yet another standoff with the House of Commons and delaying the processes that we have put in the Bill. The creative and technology industries want certainty, not constitutional crises.

I hope that my remarks today give noble Lords confidence in the Government’s approach, which has accountability at its heart and will allow us to put this important Bill to bed. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the third round of ping-pong, as many noble Lords have observed, I will speak very briefly. If the noble Baroness the Minister has not by now understood how strongly noble Lords on all sides of the House feel about this issue, it may be too late anyway.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has made an increasingly powerful case for the Government to act in defence of the rights of copyright owners, and we continue to call on the Government to listen. We have of course discussed this at great length. The noble Baroness has tabled a new Motion which would require Ministers to make a Statement and bring forward a draft Bill. Given that the Minister has expressed her sympathy for the concerns of your Lordships’ House previously, surely this new Motion would be acceptable to the Government as a pathway toward resolving the problem, and we again urge the Government to accept it.

However, whatever choice the Government make—I do not think anyone could claim that any part of this is an easy problem, as my noble friend Lord Vaizey pointed out—many of us are frustrated by the absence of agility, boldness and imagination in their approach. That said, speaking at least from the Front Bench of a responsible Opposition, we take the view that we cannot engage further in protracted ping-pong. We are a revising Chamber, and, although it is right to ask the Government to think again when we believe they have got it wrong, we feel we must ultimately respect the will of the elected Chamber.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I must once again thank all noble Lords who have spoken during this debate, and of course I continue to recognise the passion and the depth of feeling on this issue.

I did not think I needed to reiterate this, but we absolutely believe in the importance of the creative sector, and of course we want it to have a flourishing future. In previous debates, I have spelled out all the work that we are doing with the creative sector and how fundamental it is to our economic planning going forward. I do not intend to go over that, but I have said it time and again from this Dispatch Box. Our intention is to find a substantial and workable solution to this challenge that we are all facing.

I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and others that we have had numerous discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others and have of course taken those discussions seriously. As a result, we have come today with an honest and committed plan to work together to resolve the contentious issue of AI and copyright both quickly and effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Could she just deal with the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others? Why, if the Government are working and looking for a compromise, have they sent this back to the House without any proposal from the Government?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, when I set out my comments, I said that I have made compromises, and I will reiterate them. We are trying to find a way through on the detail of how we are going to find something that is workable and deliverable in the longer term. That is the real challenge here. We all agree that we need to find something that will support the creative sector. It is about finding a model that will work internationally as well. That is our real challenge, and that is what we are attempting to do.

I think noble Lords feel that it is simpler than it is, because this is a huge challenge for us on a global basis. Let us not just think that there is a simple solution; I do not think for one second that there is.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way, but does she accept that in order for these discussions to be fruitful in the round table and workshops that the Government have proposed, all parties need to know that they are entering those discussions on an equal footing? Although the noble Baroness and the Secretary of State have made quite a lot of play about not wanting to favour one side or another, through the consultation process and the way in which the Government have demonstrated a favouritism to one side of that discussion, there is a lack of confidence within the creative sector about their entering into these negotiations. That is what is lacking and what is needed to get those discussions to the point where they can be constructive and deliver the solution—which, I agree with her, will be very difficult to achieve.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and all the Ministers in the department have made it absolutely clear how vital it is that the creative sector’s interests are protected in the discussions. The sector will be part of the working groups, have a seat at the table and have its voice heard. We have a job to do in reassuring those people that this is a workable solution, but they will see that the long-term workable solution which we are attempting to achieve would be for everyone.

Those working groups will address the issue of transparency and technical standards in a way that supports the creative industries as well as the tech sector. Those working groups, alongside the consultation responses, will inform the reports, the proposal and the economic assessment that the Government have already committed to in this Bill. It may be that the working groups bring other benefits, such as interim voluntary arrangements, until longer-term solutions can be agreed upon and implemented. However, we must see what comes out of the process, rather than imposing preconditions at this stage.

As I said earlier, His Majesty’s Government have made three additional commitments on this matter. First, these reports will be expanded with two additional topics—extraterritoriality and enforcement. Secondly, the report’s proposals and economic impact assessment will be published more quickly—within nine months. Thirdly, if we have not completed these reports within six months, the Secretary of State will provide a progress report to Parliament.

Turning to the first proposed new subsection of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I agree that the scale of unauthorised use of works as inputs to AI models, and the impact of such use on copyright owners, AI developers and the wider economy should all be considered as we develop our policy approach and put forward our proposals, as should the adequacy of the legislative framework to support copyright owners. I am pleased to confirm that these aspects will already be considered as part of the impact assessment. The Government will report as we go along and are committed to publishing that. We intend for that impact assessment and report to be published within nine months and to make a progress statement after six months if needed. I hope that gives clarity to noble Lords, such as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the Government agree that these issues are important and are actively working on them. We disagree with this part of the noble Baroness’s amendment only on the basis that an additional statement is not needed.

However, turning to the second proposed new subsection of the noble Baroness’s amendment, I can see the appeal of requiring the Government to make progress with legislation in this space. The Government have heard noble Lords’ concerns about the pace of progress. The Secretary of State said in the other place that he proposes legislation to be tabled as soon as possible. He has set out a plan for determining what such legislation should contain, assessing the consultation responses, convening technical working groups and then producing reports and economic impact assessments on our proposals.

Many of the things in the noble Baroness’s amendment may coincide with the outcomes of this plan. She has great foresight, but none of us have a crystal ball. It is fundamentally wrong to prejudge and pre-empt the process now being prescribed in the content of the legislation. What would noble Lords say to the 11,500 people who took the time to submit detailed responses to the consultation—that their considered thoughts are irrelevant because the outcome has already been put in statute? What to the working groups of technical experts that, rather than work with us to come up with a comprehensive solution that works for all sides, must abide by regulations that ignore their input and cover only one or two issues? What to the elected House, which has already voted these amendments down three times? Rather than respect one of our core constitutional principles, cited indeed by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, before the recess, do we believe in consulting and properly legislating, but just not today?

This cannot be what anybody thinks is right, either on this issue or indeed as a matter of principle. I repeat: the Government have heard the concerns of your Lordships’ House and set out their plan to address them. This must be allowed to run its course. I urge noble Lords not to insist on their amendment, nor to support the noble Baroness’s new amendment. Doing so will further delay our plan for dealing with the issues at hand and delay all the other good that this Bill will do; for example, allowing the EU to make its decision on data adequacy for the UK; providing for data preservation notices for coroners to support bereaved parents; introducing new offences tackling intimate image deepfake abuse; and enabling digital verification services, the national underground asset register and smart data schemes to grow the economy. All these things are waiting in the wings once the data Bill is passed.

I hope that noble Lords will reflect on this. We are making compromises—indeed, we have made a compromise—and we are trying to work quickly. Our only concern is with the wording of the noble Baroness’s amendment, which we do not feel will give us the comprehensive and detailed solution that we know is necessary to reassure the creative and technology sectors in the UK that we can make this work.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I first thank everyone who has spoken. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who thinks that I have won. I therefore hope that he expects and anticipates that one of my amendments will make it into the Bill, because that is what winning looks like to me.

I want to make a broader point about winning and losing. I did not want to be here again. I know that the Minister has told the House to be very careful about how we speak, but I think that she would acknowledge that, in private, I have reached out to all sides of the Government to discuss this and to try to get a compromise. I think she will also know that the small changes that she mentioned—which are all very welcome, but do not add up to a real change—are not something that the Government came to me with before the debate; this was the first that I heard of them. That is probably because she knows that they are not profound or significant.

I wish that the Minister had not gone back on this issue of stealing. I just want to make it utterly clear—I hope my words were clear; I will re-read Hansard—that stealing is happening, and standing in the way of transparency allows stealing to continue. That is the argument that I have made; I have been very careful in making it. As many people around the House have said on the previous amendment, the Government cannot have it both ways. They do not like the drafting, but they do not draft anything else; they do not like the comprehensive one, but this one is not comprehensive enough. This is ping-pong in the round—the Government are forcing ping-pong on us. My real wish is that the Government find some strength, some humility and some way of coming forward with what we passed last time, which was a power to make regulation in their own image once their report had been done. That was a good amendment. That is the amendment that the Government should be backing. Today’s amendment is a “just in case”.

The Government should not worry about the bulk of the 11,500. They would be very happy if the Government acted now. That is not a problem, and I am willing to take that, but the Government have offered no timeline. They have proposed voluntary systems, while the longer issue will continue; they have said “as soon as we can”. I do not doubt that every Minister has in their heart the right motivation—let me say that on the record—but the actions of the Government are blocking an entire industry from protecting their property. Unfortunately, like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I appear to have this socialist inclination that people should have a fair day’s pay for their labour. I seek the agreement of the House.