Employment Rights Bill

Report (3rd Day)

16:47:00

Amendment 111ZA

Moved by

111ZA: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause— “Workplace AI risk and impact assessments(1) Before implementing or developing an AI system which may have significant risks or impacts on employment rights and conditions in the workplace, an employer must conduct a workplace AI risk and impact assessment (a “WAIRIA”)(2) A WAIRIA must be conducted under this section if there is a potential significant risk or impact on—(a) the identification or exercise of rights;(b) recruitment;(c) work access or allocation;(d) remuneration or benefits;(e) contractual status, terms or conditions;(f) mental, physical or psychosocial health.(3) A WAIRIA conducted under subsection (1) must—(a) document the intended purpose and functionality of the AI system;(b) establish a process for undertaking the monitoring of significant risks and impacts; (c) document the definitions, metrics and methods selected for the WAIRIA;(4) Employers must review and update the WAIRIA—(a) at least once every 12 months,(b) whenever substantial changes are made to the AI system to which it relates, or(c) when evidence emerges of unforeseen significant risks or impacts.(5) The Secretary of State must require any Fair Work Agency to issue guidance on the conduct disclosure and enforcement of WAIRIAs within 6 months of this section coming into force.”

My Lords, Amendment 111ZA seeks to introduce a requirement for workplace AI risk and impact assessments. This amendment is focused on addressing the profound and rapidly evolving impact of artificial intelligence systems on the modern workplace. There are many opportunities for its adoption but also risks and impacts. There is potentially massive job displacement. AI could displace 1 million to 3 million UK jobs overall. There are workplaces skills gaps; more than half the UK workforce lacks essential digital skills and the majority of the public has no AI education or training. AI recruitment algorithms have resulted in race and sex discrimination. There are legal vulnerabilities. Companies risk facing costly lawsuits and settlements when unsuccessful job applicants claim unlawful discrimination by AI hiring systems. Meanwhile, AI adoption accelerates rapidly, and the UK’s regulatory framework is lagging behind. Organisations such as the Trades Union Congress and the Institute for the Future of Work have consistently highlighted the critical need for robust regulation in this area. The TUC, through its artificial intelligence regulation and employment rights Bill, drafted with a multi-stakeholder task force, explicitly proposes workforce AI risk assessments and emphasises the need for worker consultation before AI systems are implemented. It also advocates for fundamental rights, such as a right to a human review for high-risk decisions. IFOW similarly calls for an accountability for algorithms Act that would mandate pre-emptive algorithmic impact assessments to identify and mitigate risks, ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the use of AI at work. Both organisations stress that existing frameworks are insufficient to protect workers from the potential harms of AI. When I spoke to a similar amendment—Amendment 149—in Committee, the Minister acknowledged this and said: “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 … 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 pay plan in due course”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; col. 878.] This was all very reassuring, perhaps, but I have retabled this amendment precisely because we need more concrete specifics regarding this promised consultation. The TUC and IFOW have been working on this for four years. Is it too much to ask the Government to take a clear position on what is proposed now? The Minister referred to the importance of proper consultation. This is a crucial area impacting the fundamental rights and well-being of workers right now, often without their knowledge, and AI systems are increasingly being introduced into the workforce, so the Government need to provide clarity on what kind of consultation is being undertaken, with whom they will engage beyond relevant stakeholders and what the precise timescale is for this consultation and any subsequent legislative action, particularly given the rapid introduction of AI into workplaces. We cannot afford a wait-and-see approach. If comprehensive AI regulation cannot be addressed within this Bill as regards the workplace, we need an immediate and clear commitment to provision within dedicated AI legislation, perhaps coming down the track, to ensure that AI in the workplace truly benefits everyone. I beg to move.

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who, in his single Nelsonian amendment, has covered a lot of the material in my more spread-out set of amendments. I support his Amendment 111ZA and will speak to my Amendments 168 to 176. I declare my interests in the register, particularly my technology interests, not least as a member of the advisory board of Endava plc and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate. I will take one brief step backwards. From the outset, we have heard that the Government do not want to undertake cross-sector AI legislation and regulation. Rather, they want to take a domain-specific approach. That is fine; it is clearly the stated position, although it would not be my choice. But it is simultaneously interesting to ask how, if that choice is adopted, consistency across our economy and society is ensured so that, wherever an individual citizen comes up against AI, they can be assured of a consistent approach to the treatment of the challenges and opportunities of that AI. Similarly, what happens where there is no competent regulator or authority in that domain? At the moment, largely, neither approach seems to be being adopted. Whenever I and colleagues have raised amendments around AI in what we might call domain-specific areas, such as the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, the data Bill and now the Employment Rights Bill, we are told, “This is not the legislation for AI”. I ask the Minister for clarity as to whether, if a cross-sector approach to AI is not being taken, a domain-specific approach is, as opportunities are not being taken up when appropriate legislation comes before your Lordships’ House. I turn to the amendments in my name. Amendment 168 goes to the very heart of the issue around employers’ use of AI. Very good, if not excellent, principles were set out in the then Government’s White Paper of 2023. I have transposed many of these into my Amendment 168. Would it not be beneficial to have these principles set in statute for the benefit of workers, in this instance, wherever they come across employers deploying AI in their workplace? Amendment 169 lifts a clause largely from my Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Private Member’s Bill and suggests that an AI responsible officer in all organisations that develop, deploy and use AI would be a positive thing for workers, employees and employers alike. This would not be seen as burdensome, compliant or a mere question of audit but as a positive, vibrant, dynamic role, so that the benefits of AI could be felt by workers right across their employment experience. It would be proportionate and right touch, with reporting requirements easily recognised as mirroring similar requirements set out for other obligations under the Companies Act. If we had AI responsible officers across our economy, across businesses and organisations deploying and using AI right now, this would be positive, dynamic and beneficial for workers, employees, employers, our economy and wider society. Amendment 170 goes to the issue of IP copyright and labelling. It would put a responsibility on workers who are using AI to report to the relevant government department on the genesis of that IP and copyrighted material, and the data used in that AI deployment, by which means there would be clarity not only on where that IP copyright and data had emanated from but that it had been got through informed consent and that all IP and copyright obligations had been respected and adhered to. Amendments 171 and 172 similarly look at where workers’ data may be ingested right now by employers’ use of AI. These are such rich, useful and economically beneficial sources of data for employers and businesses. Amendment 171 simply suggests that there should be informed consent from those workers before any of their data can be used, ingested and deployed. I would like to take a little time on Amendment 174, around the whole area of AI in recruitment and employment. This goes back to one of my points at the beginning of this speech: for recruitment, there currently exists no competent authority or regulator. If the Government continue with their domain-specific approach, recruitment remains a gap, because there is no domain-specific competent authority or regulator that could be held responsible for the deployment and development of AI in that sector. If, for example, somebody finds themselves not making a shortlist, they may not know that AI has been involved in making that decision. Even if they were aware, they would find themselves with no redress and no competent authority to take their claim to.

17:00:00

Would the Minister not agree that this makes the case for at least the consideration of a recruitment and employment-specific regulator to be brought about through this Bill? If not, I would certainly prefer to have a light-touch, cross-sector AI authority which would ensure that, wherever individuals, workers, employees and citizens come across AI, they can have clarity, certainty and consistency in its application. In this instance, it would be in the area of recruitment, but the AI authority—agile, light-touch and, crucially, horizontally focused—would ensure clarity, certainty and consistency across all sectors of employment, our economy and society.

I will touch briefly on Amendment 176 and the algorithmic allocation of work. Again, this is already happening, often without employees even being aware that that is the case. What is the Government’s position on the algorithmic allocation of work? If this amendment is not to be considered and adopted, what is the Government’s approach to how this is currently occurring in our economy to workers right now, often with an extremely discriminatory and detrimental impact on those workers?

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

This situation could be wholly averted if some of these amendments were considered and incorporated into the Employment Rights Bill. Better still, the Government should reconsider bringing forward a cross-sector AI regulation Bill. What we know fundamentally is that regulation is right: right for workers, right for employees, and right for all aspects of our economy and society. When I say that regulation is right, I mean the right size regulation. What we know from history, not least from recent history, is that right-size regulation is good for innovation, investment, citizens, creativity and our country. Would the Government be good enough to agree?

My Lords, I am aware that many of the amendments in this group have a rather different focus from the points I wish to make. I acknowledge the amendments by the noble Lords, Lord Clement Jones and Lord Holmes of Richmond. I believe they provide a valuable opportunity to reflect on the particular nature of working in tech and AI. This is, as has already been alluded to, a sector that makes a significant and growing contribution to the UK economy, and it is rightly seen as one of the priority strands of the Government’s modern industrial strategy. As the rather scary AI 2027 forecast by Daniel Kokotajlo and others makes clear, developments in this space are accelerating incredibly rapidly and are already reshaping how we live and work. Even as I say that, I wonder whether I may have triggered an algorithmic alert somewhere—let us hope that parliamentary privilege covers some of it. AI is happening, regardless of how we feel about it, and the opportunity it provides makes it all the more important that firms are based and regulated here rather than elsewhere. Jobs in this area tend to be highly skilled and well paid, but that does not mean workers do not need some protections. In many cases, the things that matter most are not issues such as minimum wage and paid leave but how easily people can move between companies, start their own ventures and work across several fast-growing enterprises. Here, it is non-compete agreements which pose a particular challenge. Understandable concerns over safeguarding intellectual property have led some firms to restrict employee movement, yet this comes at a cost to innovation, competition and the free flow of ideas that underpin these industries. I know the last Government carried out a review of these clauses in general terms, but no meaningful reform followed. Does the department have a view on how widespread these clauses now are, particularly in fast-moving and competitive sectors? Has any formal assessment been made of their impact on innovation, start-up activity, and people’s ability to move freely and fairly between roles? I fully appreciate that this Bill is focused on establishing baseline rights for all workers rather than addressing sector-specific concerns. However, I hope the Minister can say something about how these challenges are being considered as part of the Government’s wider thinking on the future of work and on how we ensure that the UK remains a good place to innovate, as well as a fair place to work.

My Lords, I support the timely and vital amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Holmes of Richmond, concerning the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace. These amendments, which cover transparency, accountability, consent, fairness and the protection of workers’ rights, speak to one of the central challenges of our time: how we align the rapid deployment of AI with the rights, dignity and agency of working people. Just 11 days ago, a few of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, had the privilege of attending the round table on aligning AI for human flourishing, hosted here in the House of Lords by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and convened by Oxford University’s Institute for Ethics in AI and the Accelerator Fellowship Programme. It was led by Professor Yuval Shany and brought together leading international voices, including Professor Alondra Nelson, who designed the US Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, later embedded in President Biden’s executive order on AI. That discussion made one thing clear: we are at a crossroads. As Professor Nelson put it at a recent AI action summit in Paris: “We can create systems that expand opportunity rather than consolidate power for the few”. If we are serious about that aspiration, we need laws that embed it in practice. I hope we will soon see legislation introduced in this House—an AI Bill of Rights rooted in the UK context—that reflects our democratic values, legal traditions and the lived realities of British workers. That will require leadership from the Government and support across parties, and I believe this House is well placed to lead the way. That is precisely what the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seek to do. Amendment 168 outlines the core principles employers must uphold when using AI on workers: safety, fairness, transparency, governance, inclusion and the right to redress. These are the bedrock of responsible innovation. Amendment 169 proposes the appointment of designated AI officers within organisations, ensuring that someone is directly accountable for the ethical and unbiased use of these powerful technologies. Amendments 171 and 172 tackle perhaps the most urgent concern: consent. No worker’s data should be ingested by AI systems—or decisions made about their employment by algorithm—without their meaningful, informed opt-in. We are not speaking in abstractions; AI is already determining who is shortlisted, scheduled, surveilled or sidelined. These systems often operate in secret and carry forward the biases of the data they are trained on. If we do not act now, we risk embedding discrimination in digital form. This is not the first time that this House has stood up for fairness in AI. On 12 May, and in subsequent ping-pongs on the data Bill, many of us voted in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness,sb Lady Kidron, which called for transparency over copyright and AI. That debate too was about rights—to control one’s work, one’s data and one’s identity. The same principle is at stake here. If the UK is to lead on AI, we must lead not just in capability but in ethics. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, are not radical but responsible; they bring our values into alignment with our technologies. I therefore urge all noble Lords to support them, even though it is highly unlikely that they will be accepted.

From these Benches, all I can say is that I echo those words. I hope that the Government have listened to the arguments about AI and will respond positively.

My Lords, I too congratulate my fellow solicitor, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond on their amendments. We are following up on the exchanges that took place at Question Time earlier today, when the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Vallance—offered to give us a reading list so that we could peruse the subject during the vacation, when he explained that, sadly, the Government are not yet able to produce their consultation paper. When the noble Baroness the Minister sums up this debate, can she identify for us what her noble friend had in mind? We are anxious to make sure that we are up to date on these very important subjects. AI technologies are evolving at pace, touching every corner of the economy, from manufacturing and logistics to retail, healthcare and particularly—as my noble fellow lawyer knows—professional services. In the context of work, AI offers real potential: it can support productivity, streamline processes and free individuals from repetitive and burdensome tasks. It may also, if properly deployed, open up new opportunities for people who have historically faced barriers to employment. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, just reminded us, alongside that, there are real concerns. He instanced a number of them, and they are set out in Amendment 168; they are about fairness, transparency, accountability and, indeed, the role of human oversight in the decisions that affect people’s lives and livelihoods. It is therefore important that we take a balanced, thoughtful approach. The noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, pointed out, quite rightly, that a number of non-compete agreements are now emerging. We have to be aware that these could so easily stifle innovation, and this must be all about encouraging and stimulating innovation. Therefore, it is very important that we take a balanced, thoughtful approach. But we should not allow technological change to outpace our frameworks for fairness, ethics and employment rights. In conclusion, AI is not a distant or abstract issue; it is here, evolving and shaping the future of work. I hope we can move forward in a way that is both pro innovation and firmly rooted in the values of fairness, dignity and accountability. We very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on these subjects.

17:15:00

My Lords, I will begin with Amendment 111ZA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendments 168, 169, 171, 172, 175 and 176, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, whom I thank for his engagement on these important issues. I start by reassuring all noble Lords that we agree that AI should be deployed and used responsibly, including within the workplace. As the noble Lord knows, in January 2025, we published the AI Opportunities Action Plan, which included a commitment to “support the AI assurance ecosystem to increase trust and adoption” of AI. One of the key deliverables in this area is the AI management essentials tool. We are developing this tool to support businesses, particularly SMEs, to implement good AI governance practices. Following public consultation earlier this year, I hope to update your Lordships’ House on the consultation response and an updated version of that tool soon. Regarding these amendments, I remind noble Lords that our plan to make work pay makes it clear that workers’ interests will need to inform the digital transformation happening in the workplace. Our approach is to protect good jobs, ensure good future jobs, and ensure that rights and protections keep pace with technological change. To be clear, we are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts to examine what AI and 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. In response to the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Hunt, of course we will put ethics and fairness at the heart of that. I am keen to stress that we are taking steps to enhance our understanding of this area. This has included engagement and round-table events with a wide range of stakeholders and experts to help enrich our understanding. I reaffirm that we will consult on the make work pay proposals in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked what would be in the scope of the consultation. The consultation plan includes examining: what AI and new technologies, including automation and AI, mean for work, jobs and skills; how to promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making; and how best to make the introduction of surveillance technology in the workplace subject to consultation and negotiation with trade union or employee representatives. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked whether or not this was going to be domain-specific. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, just reminded us, this was dealt with in an Oral Question earlier this afternoon, when my noble friend Lord Vallance said that existing regulators will oversee most AI systems, supported by enhanced AI skills and cross-regulatory co-ordination through forums such as the Regulatory Innovation Office. Some cross-cutting issues will be addressed also in the planned consultation on AI. Looking specifically at Amendment 171, let me reassure the noble Lord that we believe that data protection legislation provides sufficient protection for workers and individuals where their personal data is being used in line with the key data protection principles, including lawfulness, fairness and transparency. Consent is a lawful ground to process personal data. However, due to the power imbalance between the employee and employer, it is often inappropriate for employers to rely on consent from employees to process their data. This is why we have an additional lawful ground to carry out such processing, such as legitimate interest under the data protection law. Therefore, we do not wish to limit data processing in these situations to consent alone. I also point out that while data protection principles establish the requirements that we expect the use of AI systems to adhere to, AI assurance provides ways to evidence that these requirements have been met in practice. Amendment 170 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require workers and employers to maintain records of data and intellectual property used in AI training and to allow independent audits of AI processes. As he will know, this issue was debated extensively during the passage through your Lordships’ House of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Only last month I confirmed that we will publish a report, including on transparency in the use of intellectual property material in AI training, within nine months of Royal Assent to the Act, which will be due by 18 March next year. The Government have also committed to setting up expert stakeholder working groups to help drive forward practical, workable solutions in this area, alongside a parliamentary working group to engage with policy development. Amendment 174 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, proposes a review of the use of AI in recruitment and employment. As the noble Lord will be aware, last year the previous Government published detailed guidance on responsible AI in recruitment, which covers governance, accessibility requirements and testing. This was developed with stakeholders and relevant regulators, such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Employers and recruiters may find this guidance useful to help integrate AI into their recruitment practices in a responsible way. Furthermore, I am excited about the opportunities of AI in supporting the UK’s workforce, as well as creating jobs and growing our economy. However, we must also understand how it may affect the labour market, including any potential disruption. The AI Security Institute has begun assessing this issue, and I hope to be able to update your Lordships’ House on this as work progresses. Regarding our position on general AI regulation and the establishment of a new AI regulator, we believe that AI is best regulated at the point of use by the UK’s existing sectoral regulators. As experts in their sector, they are in the best place to understand the uses and risks of AI in their relevant areas, and we will support them to do this. I emphasise that in response to the AI Opportunities Action Plan, we have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened. I assure your Lordships’ House that we are committed to making sure that workers’ interests inform the digital transformation taking place in the workplace. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley for raising non-compete clauses. There has been extensive research and analysis in recent years looking at the prevalence of non-compete clauses in the UK labour market and their impact on both workers and the wider economy. Government research published in 2023 found that non-compete clauses were widely used across the labour market, with around 5 million employees in Great Britain working under a contract that contained a non-compete clause, with a typical duration of around six months. As my noble friend identified, this can adversely impact both the worker affected, through limiting their ability to move between jobs, and the wider economy, due to the impacts on competition. It is often assumed that non-compete clauses are found only in contracts of high earners. However, research published last year by the Competition and Markets Authority found that while non-competes are more common in higher-paid jobs, even in lower-paid jobs 20% to 30% of workers believe that they are covered by non-compete clauses. The Government have been reviewing the research and work done to date on non-compete clauses, and I am pleased to be able to confirm that we will be consulting on options for reform of non-compete clauses in employment contracts in due course. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked for my suggested reading list following my noble friend’s kind offer earlier this afternoon. I can do no better than to recommend the excellent book by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on AI. In that spirit, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to withdraw his Amendment 111ZA.

The noble Baroness nearly won me over at that point. I thank her. I feel like someone who was expecting a full meal but receives a rather light snack. I will explain why as we go through. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I feel that I am somewhat upstaging him by putting an amendment at the front of the group, but we have many common themes that we both have pursued over the years together. I agree with him on the desirability of a cross-sector approach. He is much more patient than I am and, in putting down individual amendments and hoping that the Minister will give satisfactory answers, he is clearly more optimistic than I am. Whether his optimism has been justified today, I am not so sure. The Minister could not even acknowledge the work done by the TUC, which has been ground-breaking in so many ways. It has taken four years, so it is extraordinary that the Government are doing what they are doing. I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, had to say. I was not quite sure how it connected to AI, but he very cunningly linked the subject of non-compete clauses to innovation, which does link to AI. I was encouraged by what the Minister had to say about consultation on reform. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded me that I was a solicitor. Unlike him, I do not still have a practising certificate still, but there we are. He has much more stamina than I have. Non-compete clauses can be extremely important in making sure that know-how is preserved within an existing business. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for what he had to say on making sure that AI ensures human flourishing and that we preserve agency. That is what the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and me are all about. The Minister talked about an AI assurance ecosystem and AI management essential tools that there will be a consultation on, but I could not sense any intention to do anything other than a sort of voluntary approach. We have a lot of employment law that has developed over the years, but the Government seem to be allergic to doing anything with any teeth. She mentioned recruitment practices, but that again seems to be very much a voluntary approach. The AI Security Institute is not a regulator. I cannot feel that the Minister has given much more than the noble Lord, Lord Leong, gave last time. For instance, the Minister talked about consultation over make-work proposals. This involved talking about best practice on the adoption of AI and how best to deal with surveillance technology. Again, I did not sense any real intent to make sure that we have a new set of protections in the workplace in the face of AI. I very much hope that, as time goes on, the Government will develop a much more muscular approach to this. As many noble Lords have said, AI presents a great number of opportunities in the workplace, but we absolutely do not want to see the opportunities overwhelmed by mistrust and a belief that AI presents unacceptable risks on the part of those employees. We want to see employees understanding that in the face of AI adoption, they have the right to be consulted and there is proper risk assessment of the introduction of these systems into the workplace, so that there is a proper, consensual approach to AI adoption. I really do not feel that the Government are keeping up to date with the issues in this respect, and I am afraid that is rather reflected in some of the issues that we are going to talk about on Wednesday as well. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 111ZA withdrawn.

17:30:00

Schedule 4: Pay and conditions of school support staff in England

Amendment 111A

Moved by

111A: Schedule 4, page 201, line 3, leave out “For the purposes of this Part,” and insert— “(A1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(b) of section 148C, matters within the SSSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.(B1) A framework under subsection (A1) must include information on—(a) the remuneration of school support staff,(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff,(c) the training of school support staff,(d) career progression for school support staff, and(e) related matters.(C1) When taking any action related to the matters in subsection (B1), an employer may disregard the framework only in exceptional circumstances.(D1) For the purposes of subsection (C1), the definition of “exceptional circumstances” shall be set out in regulations. (1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C,”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would change the matters within the SSSNB’s remit in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but exceptional circumstances.

My Lords, Amendments 111A, 111B, 116A and 116B in my name seek to improve the Government’s proposal to mandate a single, detailed set of terms and conditions for all support staff. As we debated in Committee, the status quo is not perfect. The current national joint council arrangements have significant weaknesses in their application to schools, which has led some local authorities to opt out of the Green Book terms and conditions. I hope the House will forgive me if I remind noble Lords why these amendments are necessary. First of all, we are talking about a very large workforce: about half a million people are employed within the school support staff workforce. Half of those, roughly, are teaching assistants, and the other half have a huge range of roles, literally thousands of different roles. This is a very complicated area. There is variety in roles and in pay and conditions, which reflects local needs, whether it is the organisational structure of a trust, pressures on a local authority where it opts out of the NJC, or where employers have particular needs because of geographic local market conditions. I mentioned in Committee the difference in trying to recruit an IT assistant in Cambridge versus Oldham. The landscape is very different today from the early 2000s when the SSSNB previously existed. We now have around 2,500 trusts, with about half our schools in trusts and half in local authorities. But the innovation that we have seen in relation to pay and conditions for school support staff has of course been largely in the trust sector. I will just recap our specific worries about the Bill as currently drafted. The first is that it will add to the complexity, workload and cost of every single school in the country at a time when we know that schools are under considerable pressure and when the Government are rightly focusing on recruitment and retention of the teaching and support staff workforce. My Amendment 111A seeks to mitigate the potential damage of this by limiting the SSSNB’s powers to creating a framework that academies must consider regarding remuneration, terms and conditions, training, career progression and related matters. I tried to work out roughly how many role profiles the department will need to create to meet the breadth of roles that the SSSNB will cover. I think it is realistic to say that across about 22,000 schools and around 2,500 trusts, there will literally be thousands of ways of dividing up and specifying roles, so that if the SSSNB is to try to articulate role profiles in detail, it will have to produce thousands of them. We just debated the power of AI; maybe these are all going to be drafted by AI—who knows? If not, it could take a very long time. I will just give one example of the complexity of this. If we think just about finance roles in schools and trusts, they could vary from the chief financial officer of a large trust to the chief operating and financial officers in medium-sized trusts who manage estates and technology, through finance directors of smaller trusts who might be more like executive business managers in larger trusts, and to finance directors in single-academy trusts who have a role not unlike a business manager in a maintained school, but with more accountability. Then we have finance managers, finance assistants, management consultants, senior management consultants, financial accountants, finance business partners, payroll managers—the list goes on. These are all in endless combinations that change over time as trusts and schools grow, shrink and change. The same is true for HR, technology, data and projects, as well as pastoral roles. This illustrates that we are looking at a vast undertaking, and more importantly a needless one, given my Amendment 111A and the Government’s very welcome Amendment 112 and associated amendments that clarify that there cannot be an agreement that cuts the pay of a school support staff member. But any national framework that fails to acknowledge this reality risks becoming either so vague as not to be useful or too rigid to serve communities effectively. We have not had clarity yet from the Government about how this is going to be addressed in the real world. We are also worried that there is no estimate at all for the additional costs that this approach will create for schools, and my Amendment 116B aims to address this. It seems extraordinary to introduce a measure that will increase costs to schools and costs to the public purse without working out how much that would be. I do not know whether the Minister can update the House on that point. Our final concern is that the Government’s Amendment 112 will not fully address the ability of trusts to innovate and improve the terms for their support staff, which, rightly, the Government have as their priority for recruitment and retention. As I read it, it appears to say that new subsections (2) to (5), introduced by Schedule 4 on page 207, do not apply if each individual term and condition is to the advantage of the employee. I phrased that in a positive sense; the amendment is phrased the other way around. Across the House, I hope we are keen that innovation around terms and conditions is possible where it provides an advantage to the employee in the round, but not necessarily looking at every element separately. For example, some trusts currently have a policy that everybody who joins in a child-facing role must either have or work towards achieving a level 3 qualification. That is clearly good for children. It leads to higher pay, which is good for the member of staff. But the duty on an employee to work towards a level 3 qualification is clearly a new requirement on that employee. My understanding is that anything that requires a person to acquire a qualification or undertake training is not defined as an improvement in their terms and conditions. An employee could reasonably say, “I don’t have to do that under the new national terms and conditions”, even where the unions think it is a good idea and other employees are in favour of it. So trusts would not be able to stick with such approaches, which benefit children and staff. I hope that the Minister can confirm that my understanding of this is right. It is frequently the case that contracts for support staff in trusts are constructed very differently from those in the maintained sector. If contracts specify that hours, holidays, allowances, pay scales et cetera are set out in a completely different way from the SSSNB terms and conditions, but the overall impact is better for everyone, why would we want to rule this out? The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, kindly met the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and me last week. She pointed out that school support staff are the only public sector workforce without a pay negotiating body. She is right about that but, if the Government are interested in the outcomes rather than the process, my amendments, particularly Amendment 111A, achieve their aims but avoid complexity and cost. We believe that the Government have addressed the issue of setting a floor not a ceiling on pay, but, although I understand it is their intention to address innovation, the amendment as drafted does not address the reality of innovation and improvements of terms and conditions—hence my Amendment 111B. I hope that the Minister is able to be clear when she sums up that the Government agree with me and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and that we can find a way to address this effectively. I beg to move.

My Lords, may I rather impudently congratulate the Government on their Amendments 112 to 116 and 117 to 119? In Committee, I moved a series of amendments to similar effect; namely, that the output of the negotiating body should not impose a detriment to existing terms and conditions and should permit any enhancement to existing terms and conditions by negotiation or otherwise. I am not so immodest as to imagine that there is any causal connection between my amendments in Committee and the appearance of these amendments on Report. I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, also had amendments to similar effect; it may be that she had much more traction with my noble friends on the Front Bench than I had. Whatever the process—it is of course irrelevant—I congratulate my noble friends on the Front Bench for the introduction of these amendments, which make solid that this is a floor and not a ceiling.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran in her Amendments 111A, 111B, 116A and 116B. I have not spoken on the Bill before, so I refer noble Lords to my registered interests, in particular as a founder of a multi-academy trust with 18 schools and around 1,400 staff. This new negotiating body—a central bureaucratic body dictating terms and conditions and pay for all to obey across our whole nation—literally drives us back to the 1970s. It would remove any ability to take note of local employment conditions. My own multi-academy trust completed a secondary school core structure review in 2022 and we have just finished the same review for our primary schools. We now have in place posts and grades that meet the needs of each school and, most importantly, those of our pupils. We have set out a grading system to reflect the local conditions in which we operate. Primary and secondary staffing levels are strong and sustainable. The SSSNB would undo all this, and the cost of going through this new legislation would be bureaucratic and increase the overhead in our human resources. Administering these changes would take resources away from the front line with no meaningful benefit. I congratulate the Government on at least accepting that there is a floor to this whole arrangement, but it still leaves an extremely complicated central bureaucracy. To provide good education we need flexibility. We operate harmoniously with our unions; we share a common mission and believe we have created a first-class cadre of support staff. Indeed, only two weeks ago, one of our support staff saved the life of one of our children, who had a cardiac arrest on a playing field when playing away. The local defibrillator had broken and he kept the child alive for 20 minutes. I am looking at this whole Bill more widely. If we zoom out beyond the area of education, we start to see the impact of the aggressive anti-employer strategy being deployed by this Government. We have already seen the impact of VAT on private schools, with them going out of business and staff losing their jobs. We have already seen the escalation of employers’ national insurance and the widening of the bands, which has contributed to some 60,000 jobs being lost in the hospitality sector. Last week, we tried to warn the Government about the banter clause, which will drive another nail into the coffin of the hospitality sector. Private sector employment market vacancies are under great pressure. At the beginning of last year, there were 900,000 vacancies and, by May this year, that was down to about 720,000. We heard earlier in the debate from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on AI, and we are already seeing the impact of this—perhaps more dramatically in the US, where Microsoft has got rid of 15,000 staff in the last two months.

17:45:00

As my noble friend Lady Barran said, schools are under considerable financial pressure already. For me, the most frightening impact is the issue of persistent absence, where we particularly need non-teaching staff. For example, one of our schools in a very deprived area uses a retired taxi driver. How does he fit into this rigid new system? We use him because he knows the community; he has been ferrying people around that town for 30 years. He is the right person for that job. That would not necessarily apply in Tower Hamlets.

I plead for flexibility. I have been in business for—I am almost frightened to admit it—45 years. I hired my first employee in 1979. I have created thousands of jobs in the private sector over that time, and I can assure your Lordships that, for that to happen, one needs a flexible employment market. The SSSNB does the direct opposite of this.

My Lords, I support Amendments 111A and 111B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I declare an interest as a governor of King’s College London Mathematics School and as a member of its finance and pay committees. I have been trying to get my head around the implications of these clauses for support staff ever since the Bill was introduced. The more I think about it, the more unworkable it seems to be. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the complexity of support staff roles and the way they vary with different types of schools has become much greater in the last 20 years. My experience is of a rather unusual 16-to-19 academy. We do outreach and projects in collaboration with charities and the university. We engage in a large number of things that are not about just standard school teaching. The standard scales for teaching staff are not a problem for us but, for support staff, we have specific roles that are suited to the particular activities in which people are engaged. We certainly pay as much as we can afford to; in the London market, we do not have much choice. The point that I want to stress is that, while it is very welcome that the Government recognise that people’s pay should not be reduced as a result of this, the real problem is that there are huge numbers of important and central jobs and roles out there, which vary hugely according to the nature of the school, the nature of the environment and what people are doing. The complexity that this will introduce when we do our workforce planning and try to work out where a new role fits on these scales really worries me. I hope that, as things roll out, the Government think very hard about how to move forward in a way that allows successful schools, which are going beyond traditional classroom teaching and doing a huge number of important things, to continue to create support staff roles that fit what they are trying to do.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a governor of King’s Leadership Academy in Liverpool. Schools face two challenges, some might say crises. First, the shortage of staff is becoming quite a serious concern. Secondly, there are real pressures on school budgets. It was easy when all schools were local authority schools, because they all had the same framework and structures. We now have a very different landscape, which we all accept. There is no difference now in how we see that landscape. Half the schools are what I call maintained schools and the other half, with a preponderance towards secondary schools, are academies within large multi-academy trusts, which in a sense are bigger than the local authorities. The local authority where I worked for a number of years had 50 schools. There are multi-academy trusts with far more schools than that. We want a system that is fair to all our non-teaching staff. We do not want to see anybody seeing a cut in their salary. But we also have to recognise that you have to have a system that is not bureaucratic and gives the freedom to schools in both cases to be able to do what is best for their staff. I fear that that will not be the case if the Government have their way. I am hopeful that the Minister will give us real reassurance on this. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, that we have a more varied system, but I slightly disagreed with her when she said, “All schools, particularly the successful ones”. It is all schools, not just the successful ones, that will face difficulties.

I totally agree with the noble Lord.

So I hope that the Minister will really consider this. It is a huge issue. We cannot see our schools have to face more costs, and we do not want to see any staff disadvantaged by a well-meaning move by the Government.

My Lords, we are dancing on the head of a pin with these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is right that these are welcome amendments that begin to address something I never knew anything about, which is that support staff have never had a baseline figure. That should be addressed. I spoke to the Minister the day before yesterday or today—time flies—and the fact is that there are 520,000 of them. That is 52% of everybody employed at schools. That is more than teachers. Those support staff have a whole range of duties and the majority are tailored to their specific needs, as other speakers have said. Government Amendment 114 provides that, where an SSSNB “has been unable to reach an agreement about a matter and the Secretary of State makes regulations about the matter, the regulations cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and do not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the regulations”. We agree with that. All that the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would change is that it would prevent “the SSSNB from blocking employers who wish to adopt new or improved employment terms and conditions”, provided that they meet the standards of minimum support. What we are trying to say here is, where they cannot come to a negotiation, the Government can step in by regulation, if that is what they want to do, but, where a body comes to an arrangement, why should you stop somebody wanting to offer more, above the floor and above the base—there is no argument about that; we all agree to the base—and say, actually, why would an SSSNB want to block some employer offering an employee better terms? If the Government reject this amendment, that is the alternative to what we are arguing. If somebody wants to pay somebody more, above the base, that is surely better for the employee. Surely that is better than somebody saying, “Well, you can’t”, which is what the Government might do. The difference is quite subtle. Sooner or later, somebody will have to work out the maths for 520,000 people and then go to all those local authorities, academies and private schools, all of a sudden, as I have said before, there are bound to be winners and losers, unless you make set the level at a sufficiently high so there are no winners and losers. I cannot imagine what that number will be, because it will be a high number. If this is about empowering people and lifting society, I am all for that. But, again, there is a level of detail. This is not a small group of people; it is an enormous number of people. It is more than the number of teachers. The teachers have had pay, and more pay, and are now going on strike for more money. Support staff do not do that. Support staff are vulnerable. They do not have that power to take industrial action to fight their corner. They negotiate their terms individually with local authorities and academies and, by and large, none of these people is paid below the minimum wage or the living wage. So, this is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I get the principle. I understand that there has been no base figure, and that should be addressed. But, if the Government are addressing that, and it is a philosophical Labour belief, they must put a price tag on it, because people need to know what the costs are, not only for their local authority but for every local authority and every academy in the country. If the noble Baroness is willing to push this to a vote—I do not know whether she will or will not—we on these Benches will support her.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I agree with pretty much all that he said. I thank my noble friend Lady Barran for her amendments. I thank my noble friend Lord Agnew for his interesting and timely perspective, and I salute the teaching assistant whom he mentioned. Amendment 111B would ensure that the establishment of national frameworks does not, by accident or design, limit the ability of employers to go further in improving conditions for their staff. It makes it clear that, while national terms may set the floor, they must not become the ceiling. As we have heard, we must leave space for innovation and ambition at the local level, particularly for those schools, academies and trusts that are actively seeking to lead in areas such as flexible working, staff well-being or enhanced support for recruitment and retention. This amendment does not undermine the national framework. On the contrary, it reinforces it, because it allows it to act as a strong foundation on which more can be built, where employers have the capacity and willingness to do so. We should not inadvertently create a situation where the national body becomes a constraint rather than a support. I therefore welcome the clarity that this amendment brings. I commend my noble friend for bringing it forward and, if she decides to press it to a vote, we will support her.

My Lords, I will speak first to government Amendments 112 to 116. The school support staff negotiating body will recognise the essential roles and responsibilities of over 800,000 support staff working in our schools, supporting our children to achieve and thrive. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I very much pay tribute to the teaching assistant whom the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, mentioned. We all know examples of support staff who have played significant interventionist roles in helping to run a school—roles that are often underrewarded and unrecognised. It is about time we put them and their pay and conditions on a proper footing. It is right that we have a mechanism for employer and employee representatives to come together to negotiate and to agree pay and conditions that reflect the varied and vital role that support staff undertake. We have heard arguments made across the House that we must make the legislation itself clearer, that the SSSNB will not mandate a one-size-fits-all approach and that individual employees will be protected from any moves to their detriment as a result of the SSSNB process. We have listened to noble Lords on this issue and, while we have always been clear that this is the Government’s intent and can be achieved through existing provisions, we have decided to amend the SSSNB provisions to ensure that both principles are established in primary legislation. This change will mean that all school support staff will benefit from a minimum offer—or floor—for pay and conditions, and that there will be no ceiling to prevent employers offering better pay or conditions. This protects individual employees and allows employers to go beyond agreements reached, should they choose to do so in response to their local circumstances. That was the argument made in Committee. A number of noble Lords argued that, particularly in academies, employers want to pay more and provide better conditions. We are making it clear that that is absolutely the right thing to do, and our amendments will deliver that. I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 111A would change the SSSNB’s remit for academies so that academy employers would be required to have regard only to the framework. As outlined in response to this amendment in Committee, it would be wrong to create a two-tier system for support staff. Since roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are now academies, it is right that academies are included in the SSSNB’s statutory remit in the same way as maintained schools. There is no need to take a different approach for academies when there will be ample room for innovation for all schools, irrespective of their structure. I hope the noble Baroness understands and agrees that all school support staff deserve to know what they can expect as a minimum for pay and conditions, and that they can continue to benefit from more favourable terms where employers offer them. However, her amendment risks creating a two-tier system that undermines the role of the new negotiating body in establishing minimum standards which will work for all schools and recognise the vital roles that support staff undertake.

18:00:00

Amendment 111B would prevent the SSSNB blocking employers who wish to adopt new or improved employment terms and conditions. I agree with the intent here, but the amendment is simply unnecessary. The government amendment I have just spoken about already prevents this. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, had a useful meeting on this with my noble friend Lady Smith, the Minister for Schools, in which this was explained.

Our amendment clearly establishes that, beyond a minimum offer, there will be flexibility for schools to offer more favourable terms for their support staff in response to local circumstances, and that individual employee contracts will need to change only if their terms or conditions are below the statutory minimum agreements arising from the SSSNB. This allows employers to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions that were agreed prior to the SSSNB regulations, or to agree more favourable pay and conditions through subsequent local negotiations.

Importantly, our amendment both protects individual employee entitlements and preserves flexibility for employers. The SSSNB will not mandate uniformity or add significant burdens to schools. Instead, it will mean that support staff in academies and maintained schools will all benefit from a minimum offer that is appropriate for the roles staff are undertaking in schools. It will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles, training and pay, as agreed by those representing the interests of school support staff and their employers.

On Amendment 116A, as outlined in Committee, the costs associated with the SSSNB’s constitution are limited to administrative expenses and fees, which will be met by the department. It would therefore be disproportionate and unnecessarily restrict the flexibility to amend the constitution if the Secretary of State was required to publish an impact assessment and lay it before Parliament before making or revising these constitutional arrangements.

Amendment 116B would require the SSSNB’s annual reports to include an assessment of the increased costs to the education sector of pay and conditions agreements made in that reporting year. The Secretary of State will specify what the SSSNB needs to consider, such as the cost implications and practical considerations for schools, when remitting the SSSNB. Of course, employers will also have a voice on that body to ensure that their interests and the costs they are concerned about are taken into account.

Assessing the cost implications and affordability for the education sector of agreements reached by the SSSNB on pay and conditions will be important for the Department for Education prior to the Secretary of State ratifying any agreements. The Secretary of State has the power to refer matters back to the SSSNB or to issue alternative regulations should the agreements not be practicable. This is the fail-safe that I think the noble Baroness is looking for. It would not be appropriate to specify in primary legislation that these assessments will be contained in annual reports to be produced by the SSSNB. We anticipate that the Department for Education will be better placed to undertake assessments than the SSSNB itself and to decide whether they should be implemented.

Government Amendments 117 to 119 and 122 are intended to have the same effect for the social care negotiating bodies as amendments in my name to the SSSNB clauses. It is critical to this Government to provide better care to people in their own homes and in the communities where they need it. These provisions will help to ensure that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for their important work. There were 1.59 million people working in the adult social care sector in England in the financial year 2023-24.

As such, we are introducing amendments to ensure that changes to workers’ pay and conditions as a result of an agreement or regulations being implemented would be only to their benefit. These amendments also make it clear that employers can offer more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by an agreement or in equivalent regulations, including through local collective agreements. This will incentivise employers to compete when attracting talent.

Finally, I turn to government Amendments 120 and 121. We are always grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its excellent work, and we concur with its statement that

“it is heartening that in a Bill with so many delegated powers it has only found four on which to raise concerns”.

We wish to improve its assessment still further with our amendments to Clause 46. These will ensure that the substantive content of guidance and codes of practice is subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the appropriate legislature where regulations set out consequences for failing to comply with a duty in relation to the guidance or code.

The measures being introduced here are major reforms, creating new structures to address major problems in the social care sector. As such, our drafting has needed to evolve over time and respond to new issues raised as we build this process. We are happy to accept the committee’s feedback and we hope to reassure your Lordships’ House of our commitment to provide Parliament with appropriate oversight.

Before I move en bloc the government amendments laid in my name, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to withdraw Amendment 111A.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short but important debate. My noble friend Lord Agnew, the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, gave good, practical examples of the risk of this approach and of undoing some of the good and innovation that have happened in the sector over several years. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said he thought we might be dancing on the head of a pin. He may be right, but there is a fundamental principle at the heart of this, which seems to differ between the Department of Health and the Department for Education, about the amount that you trust leaders in the sector to take these decisions. We have seen really positive change in the education sector in relation to school support staff as a result of innovation and of delegation to school and trust leaders. We on these Benches regret that recentralisation very much, and what appears to be a change and diverging policies between two government departments. The Minister said that we would not have a one-size-fits-all approach. I tried to be clear in my remarks that we will not have a one-size-fits-all approach; that clearly cannot happen. We will have several thousand sizes, and that is just unworkable. I know the Minister does not agree, but I think that is the reality. The Minister talked about ample room for innovation but not wanting a two-tier system. I find it hard to follow the logic. If we have enough room for flexibility, by definition, there will be evolution. There will be a floor but, rightly, there will be differences in different areas. I understood the Minister to say—she will correct me if I misunderstood—that the Government would cover any costs associated with these changes. I remind her that the Government imposed the new employers’ national insurance contribution and have not covered all the costs for schools. Schools are having to try to cover part of it themselves. I hope that, in this case, we can take her word literally that it will be 100% of the cost. One the one hand, I do not think we disagree about innovation, but on the other the Minister did not address the two examples I gave of where it is the package of conditions that is innovative and to the advantage of an individual employee. Her Amendment 112 seems to me—I am not a lawyer—to have been extremely carefully framed. It says: “Subsections (2) to (5) … do not apply in relation to a term or condition”— that is singular— “to the extent that, giving effect to the agreement would alter the term or condition to the person’s detriment”. It goes on in new paragraph (b) to say, “do not prevent the terms and conditions”— plural— “of a person’s employment from including a term or condition”, here it is singular, “that is more favourable to the person than that which would otherwise have effect”. When I talk to leaders in the sector, they are worried. They put together a package of conditions. I gave the example of where someone has a requirement to reach a level 3 qualification and is then entitled to higher pay, which benefits children and that individual. The Minister did not address that point, and I am left not with a concern that we want a different thing, although I have a nagging doubt that this phrasing would exclude that, but with the reality that, as drafted, we need my Amendment 111B. I shall test the opinion of the House when we come to that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 111A.

Amendment 111A withdrawn.

Amendment 111B

Moved by

111B: Schedule 4, page 201, line 18, at end insert— “(3) The SSSNB must not restrict employers from introducing innovative or improved terms and conditions of employment beyond the national framework, provided that such terms meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment prevents the SSSNB from blocking employers who wish to adopt new or improved employment terms and conditions.

1|18:12|266|162|Division on Amendment 111B|Amendment 111B agreed.||0|0

18:23:00

Amendments 112 to 116

Moved by

112: Schedule 4, page 207, line 17, at end insert— “(6) Subsections (2) to (5)—(a) do not apply in relation to a term or condition of a person’s employment if, and to the extent that, giving effect to the agreement would alter the term or condition to the person’s detriment; (b) do not prevent the terms and conditions of a person’s employment from including a term or condition that is more favourable to the person than that which would otherwise have effect by virtue of those subsections.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment provides that an agreement of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and does not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the agreement.

113: Schedule 4, page 207, line 29, after “apply” insert “(but see subsection (8))” Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 4 at page 208, line 4.

114: Schedule 4, page 208, line 4, at end insert— “(8) Subsections (4) to (7)—(a) do not apply in relation to a term or condition of a person’s employment if, and to the extent that, giving effect to the regulations would alter the term or condition to the person’s detriment;(b) do not prevent the terms and conditions of a person’s employment from including a term or condition that is more favourable to the person than that which would otherwise have effect by virtue of those subsections.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment provides that, where the School Support Staff Negotiating Body has been unable to reach an agreement about a matter and the Secretary of State makes regulations about the matter, the regulations cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and do not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the regulations.

115: Schedule 4, page 208, leave out lines 8 to 14 Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 4 at page 208, line 4.

116: Schedule 4, page 208, line 22, leave out “(7)” and insert “(8)” Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 4 at page 208, line 4.

Amendments 112 to 116 agreed.

Amendments 116A and 116B not moved.

Clause 44: Effect of regulations ratifying agreement

Amendment 117

Moved by

117: Clause 44, page 66, line 22, at end insert— “(5) Subsections (2) to (4)—(a) do not apply in relation to a term or condition of a social care worker’s employment if, and to the extent that, giving effect to the agreement would alter the term or condition to the social care worker’s detriment;(b) do not prevent the terms and conditions of a social care worker’s employment from including a term or condition that is more favourable to the social care worker than that which would otherwise have effect by virtue of those subsections.” Member's explanatory statement This amendment provides that an agreement of a Social Care Negotiating Body cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and does not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the agreement.

Amendment 117 agreed.

Clause 45: Power of appropriate authority to deal with matters

Amendments 118 and 119

Moved by

118: Clause 45, page 67, line 2, after “apply” insert “(but see subsection (8))” Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 45 at page 67, line 10.

119: Clause 45, page 67, line 10, at end insert— “(8) Subsections (5) to (7)—(a) do not apply in relation to a term or condition of a social care worker’s employment if, and to the extent that, giving effect to the regulations would alter the term or condition to the social care worker’s detriment;(b) do not prevent the terms and conditions of a social care worker’s employment from including a term or condition that is more favourable to the social care worker than that which would otherwise have effect by virtue of those subsections.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment provides that, where a Social Care Negotiating Body has been unable to reach an agreement about a matter and the appropriate authority makes regulations about the matter, the regulations cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and do not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the regulations.

Amendments 118 and 119 agreed.

Clause 46: Guidance and codes of practice

Amendments 120 and 121

Moved by

120: Clause 46, page 67, line 27, at end insert— “(3A) Regulations under this section that by virtue of subsection (2)(b) make provision about the consequences of a failure to comply with a duty imposed by the regulations in relation to a provision of guidance or a code of practice must provide for the guidance or code to be laid before the appropriate legislature and subject to the procedure specified.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment provides that, where regulations under clause 46 provide for the issuing of guidance or a code of practice by the Secretary of State, and make provision about the consequences of a failure to comply with a duty imposed in relation to the guidance or code, the regulations must provide for the guidance or code to be laid before Parliament and to be subject to the procedure specified in the regulations. The amendment also imposes an equivalent duty in relation to regulations made by the Welsh Ministers or Scottish Ministers.

121: Clause 46, page 67, line 28, after “section” insert “— “the appropriate legislature” means—(a) in the case of regulations of the Secretary of State, Parliament;(b) in the case of regulations of the Welsh Ministers, Senedd Cymru;(c) in the case of regulations of the Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament;”Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my other amendment of this clause.

Amendments 120 and 121 agreed.

Clause 49: Regulations under section 43 or 45: supplementary

Amendment 122

Moved by

122: Clause 49, page 69, leave out lines 13 to 19 Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 45 at page 67, line 10.

Amendment 122 agreed.

Amendment 122A

Moved by

122A: After Clause 53, insert the following new Clause— “Statutory rights of GB-linked ships’ crews(1) The members of the crew of a GB-linked ship shall be entitled to the statutory rights to which employees in the UK are entitled under statute.(2) In this section, “GB-linked ship” means a ship providing a service—(a) for the carriage of persons or goods, with or without vehicles, and(b) that is within subsection (3) or (4).(3) A service is within this subsection if it is operated between a place in Great Britain and another place in the United Kingdom.(4) A service is within this subsection if—(a) ships providing the service entered a harbour in Great Britain on at least 120 occasions in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which one or more of the statutory rights referred to in subsection (1) is claimed, or(b) 15 if the service has been provided for less than 12 months before that day, ships providing the service entered a harbour in Great Britain on at least 10 occasions in each month for which the service has been provided.(5) But a service is not within subsection (4) if the service—(a) is for the purpose of leisure or recreation, or(b) is provided by a fishing vessel.(6) In this section—“harbour” has the same meaning as in the Harbours Act 1964;“ship” has the same meaning as in section 193A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (see subsection (4) of that section).” Member's explanatory statement This new clause is intended to extend entitlement of the rights of GB-linked ships’ crews from the right to collective redundancy notification in clause 29 to entitlement to all statutory rights enjoyed by UK employees.

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to probe the extent to which the new category of seafarers, “GB-linked ships’ crews”, should benefit from other employment rights apart from the one bestowed by the Bill, which gives them a right in relation to consultation over collective redundancies, as a consequence of the P&O Ferries scandal. I understand that there have been discussions between the unions representing these seafarers and the ministerial team. In the light of that, I shall leave it to the Minister to set out the situation. I beg to move.

Having raised these issues at the beginning of Committee, I just want to say that, following the favourable response of the Front Bench to the idea of arranging a meeting at which they can be discussed, I very much look forward—at least, I hope I can—to the reply of my noble friend the Minister.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for moving his amendment. Amendments 123 and 124 in my name relate to Clause 54, which provides powers to make regulations giving effect to two named international conventions and to give effect to international agreements as they relate to maritime employment. I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its thoughtful consideration of these powers, and its recommendation to amend the procedure for new Section 84A(2) from first-time affirmative to affirmative for all uses. I wrote to the committee on 7 July, setting out our response in full. These amendments will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to regulations made under the power in new Section 84A(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, giving effect to international agreements as they relate to maritime employment. The amendments mean that all uses of the power to give effect to future or unspecified international agreements will now be subject to the affirmative procedure, and not just the first use. They will mean that Parliament has greater oversight of these agreements and amendments to them. I turn to Amendment 122A tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. The amendment would specify that the statutory rights to which shore-based workers in the UK are entitled also apply to ships’ crews working aboard services that enter ports in Great Britain 120 or more times per year, or that operate “between a place in Great Britain and another place in the United Kingdom”. The scope of services covered follows the approach taken in Clause 29, where the Government have sought to ensure that those employed aboard these services are captured by the requirement to provide proposed notification of collective redundancy. I thank my noble friend for this amendment on the application of employment rights to seafarers, and the maritime trade unions for their continuing engagement on these issues. I hope to be able to provide some clarity today, but we can also commit to continuing ongoing discussion about how we can ensure that seafarers are receiving robust protections. The Government want to see stronger employment rights for seafarers. That is why, in addition to the broader changes to employment rights, we have included a package of maritime-specific measures in this Bill. As my noble friend knows, we are closing the loophole that meant that P&O Ferries could avoid prosecution for failing to provide advance notice of proposed collective redundancies. We are also providing powers for a mandatory seafarers’ charter, which will allow us to set a higher minimum standard for wages and for how long seafarers can spend at sea without a break. This will establish a level playing field that will help prevent the undercutting of working conditions in the way that P&O Ferries sought to do. The new power to give effect to the Maritime Labour Convention, and other international agreements as they relate to maritime employment, is also important. Where international agreement is needed to improve protections, we can implement those changes.

18:30:00

In relation to broader employment rights. It is important to note that many seafarers with strong connections to Great Britain are already entitled to British employment rights and would be entitled to protections in the Bill. This would include seafarers who ordinarily work in the territorial waters of Great Britain. The courts would also consider how seafarers who spend some time working outside GB would be covered. These legal tests ensure that those seafarers who have such a strong connection that they would expect to be covered by GB law are indeed protected.

While we appreciate the intention behind the amendment, as drafted it is very broad and would apply a wide but uncertain range of rights on to seafarers with varying levels of connection to Great Britain, spanning across a significant number of different pieces of legislation. Accepting the amendment without undertaking a proper review of the consequences of this across all the relevant legislation would run the risk of unintended consequences for seafarers. It could not only disapply certain rights from seafarers who currently receive them but force UK employment protections on those who wish to be covered by a different jurisdiction, depending on the interpretation of the courts. Applying the “frequency of port calls” test to all statutory rights is not the same as applying it to the collective redundancy measure, on which the amendment is based, or the Seafarers Wages Act, which is also based on port calls. Neither of these measures confer any individual rights on to seafarers, and the mechanism was carefully designed to ensure compliance of these specific measures with international law.

Since the amendment would confer individual rights on seafarers working on non-UK flagged ships that would be enforceable in UK courts, it is important that we consider the legal consequences of this. In particular, we would need to carefully consider the international law implications. It is important that we chart the right course between protecting seafarers connected to the UK and making sure that our framework is legally robust.

For the reasons set out, we cannot accept the amendment as drafted. It would have far-reaching implications that would need proper consideration and scrutiny of the issue. As I say, the risk of unintended consequences is too great, and it could undermine the progress for seafarers that we have made through the carefully designed measures in the Bill. However, we appreciate the intention behind the amendment. I assure noble Lords that this Government are committed to protecting seafarers, and we will continue to work with ambition and determination to advance seafarers’ rights, internationally and domestically.

We would welcome the opportunity to continue the extensive engagement that we have already undertaken with the unions and industry about the application of employment protection to seafarers. The Maritime Minister recently met the RMT and undertook to continue dialogue on this matter. He would be happy to meet the RMT again following official-level discussions to explore how we could secure the objectives behind my noble friend’s amendment. With that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw Amendment 122A.

My Lords, in the light of my noble friend the Minister’s recognition of the shortfall in employment rights for seafarers and the commitment to continued engagement with the maritime unions, and indeed employers, to discuss the ways in which the intent behind the amendment might be ultimately achieved, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 122A withdrawn.

Clause 54: International agreements relating to maritime employment

Amendments 123 and 124

Moved by

123: Clause 54, page 73, line 32, leave out from “84A(2)” to end of line 34 Member’s explanatory statement This amendment, together with my other amendment of this clause, provides that regulations under new section 84A(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 giving effect to international agreements relating to maritime employment will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

124: Clause 54, page 73, leave out lines 37 to 42 Member’s explanatory statement See the explanatory statement for my other amendment of this clause.

Amendments 123 and 124 agreed.

Amendment 125

Moved by

125: After Clause 54, insert the following new Clause— “Right to opt out of collective agreements(1) A worker who is not a member of a trade union may elect, in writing, to opt out of the terms of a collective agreement that would otherwise apply to them under this Act. (2) In such a case, the worker shall be entitled to rely on the statutory rights conferred by this Act without reference to the collective agreement.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment provides non-union workers with the right to opt out of collective agreements, reinforcing individual freedom of contract and protecting access to statutory entitlements.

My Lords, Amendment 125 in my name speaks to a fundamental principle that we should run through every piece of employment legislation that we consider, and that it is the right of the individual to determine their own path. Too much of the Bill rests on an implicit and rather patronising assumption that workers are somehow incapable of managing their own affairs—that they must be corralled, collectively represented, spoken for and ultimately told what is best for them. This amendment challenges that assumption head on. It affirms the right of a worker who is not a union member to say that they wish to stand on their own two feet and do not wish to be bound by collective agreements that they had no part in negotiating and no say in accepting. That is not anti-union; it is pro-choice and pro-individual. If we believe in personal responsibility then we must also believe in personal freedom. Some workers are independent-minded individuals, who want to make their own decisions about their pay and their terms and conditions. We have to be clear: statutory rights remain in place. This amendment would do nothing to undermine minimum standards; it would simply allow the worker to rely on those rights without being bound by a collectivist framework that they never opted into. That is not a threat to fairness but the definition of fairness. The Government treat workers as a monolith. They are defined not by merit or initiative but by membership and conformity. This proposed clause offers a quiet but powerful alternative: that the individual workers matter, that their preferences matter, and that freedom of contract is not some abstract legal concept but a cornerstone of liberty. I beg to move.

My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 127, I will say a few words about Amendment 125, from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. He and other noble Lords on that side of the House often accuse those on this side of ignorance of business, but his amendment shows ignorance of what happens in industrial relations on the ground. I will make three points. First, there is nothing in the law to prevent an employer and an individual employee agreeing an improvement to terms and conditions on an existing collective agreement, save in exceptional circumstances such as that illustrated by the case of Wilson and Palmer v the United Kingdom, where the employer offered to pay workers a higher rate of pay if they surrendered their union membership. That principle would also apply to prevent the penalisation of workers on the grounds of any other protected characteristic. However, as a general principle, workers and employers can agree to improve on an existing collective agreement. Secondly, why would an individual employee agree to detrimental terms worse than an existing collective agreement—lower wages, longer hours, fewer holidays, fewer breaks, and worse terms and conditions? There can be no reason why a worker would wish not to abide by the existing collective agreement. Employees need protection against bad employers who might otherwise exploit the proposed loophole by saying to an individual employee, “I want you to opt out of the collective agreement”, hence undermining it. Thirdly, collective agreements are not dictated by the trade unions but are agreed by an employer and, usually, by a vote of the employees. We need more negotiation and less litigation. With that, I turn to my Amendment 127, which is intended to provide my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State with a mechanism to promote and encourage collective bargaining on a sector-wide basis without prescribing in detail the model to be deployed. It would be used when needed and would not compel the Government to put it into operation. I will not repeat the arguments about collective bargaining that I developed in Committee over the course of three speeches, but I think I may be permitted to summarise the gist of those arguments in six points. First, the Bill makes commendable reforms to the legal machinery to establish collective bargaining between trade unions and a single employer, but there is no mechanism in the Bill or anywhere else for multi-employer collective agreements or sector-wide collective agreements. Secondly, sectoral collective bargaining was the norm for the United Kingdom from 1918 until 1990. It established a coverage of over 80% of British workers between 1945 and the late 1980s. The percentage of workers covered by collective agreement has now declined to 25%. That means that three-quarters of our workforce are employed on “take it or leave it” terms, without any possibility of negotiating anything better than that which the employer offers. Thirdly, 80% collective bargaining coverage is curiously—or coincidentally—the level now set for the 27 member states of the European Union, after two decades during which the EU undermined sectoral collective bargaining. That policy was reversed in 2024 by means of a directive. Collective bargaining is now advocated by the OECD, since 2017, the IMF and, of course, the ILO. Fourthly, Labour’s Green Paper, A New Deal for Working People; its subsequent publication on making work pay, implementing the new deal for working people; Labour’s election manifesto; and the King’s Speech all endorsed the extension of collective bargaining. Fifthly, I come to the benefits of sectoral collective bargaining, which need spelling out again. There are at least eight benefits, as I identify them. The first is that sectoral collective bargaining increases wages. Let us recall that the real value of wages has risen only 0.5% in the past 20 years. Secondly, a rise in wages increases demand in the economy—demand for the goods and services produced by employers. Thirdly, collective bargaining contracts the differentials that have emerged: the gender pay gap, the ethnic-minority pay gap, the disability pay gap and so on. Fourthly, by increasing wages, collective bargaining diminishes the need for state benefits by way of subsidy to low wages. Let us not forget that 31% of those in receipt of universal credit are in work, which gives an indication of the lowness of wages in this country. Fifthly, increasing wages increases the Government’s tax take, which diminishes the need to find money elsewhere. Sixthly, sectoral collective bargaining prevents employers undercutting each other on labour costs. Seventhly, the other side of that coin is that it encourages employers to compete on productivity, investment, efficiency and innovation. Eighthly—this is an important point—it achieves a form of democracy at work. It gives workers a say in the terms and conditions on which they work. I said there were six points, and the sixth and final point is one of particular interest to me as a lawyer. It is the observation that the rule of law plays a part here. The rule of law, Lord Bingham’s eighth principle, is that states must abide by the treaties they have ratified. That principle has been endorsed in almost every speech I have heard my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney-General, give since his appointment to that office. This is significant because International Labour Organization Convention No. 98 and Article 6.2 of the European Social Charter 1961 impose the duty on ratifying states, which includes the United Kingdom, not just to permit collective bargaining but to promote and encourage it. The Bill was the opportunity to promote and encourage collective bargaining at sectoral level, but it does nothing to do so in any sector of the economy.

18:45:00

I remind the House that I previously quoted these short sentences from the European Committee of Social Rights, which held that

“if the spontaneous development of collective bargaining is not sufficient, positive measures should be taken to facilitate and encourage the conclusion of collective agreements”

and that

“where only 30% of the total number of employees are covered by collective agreements, voluntary negotiations are not sufficiently promoted in practice”.

The United Kingdom is now significantly below 30% of collective bargaining coverage. In many sectors, collective bargaining is not, to use the words of the committee, spontaneously developing: one has only to think of agriculture, food and parcel delivery, hospitality, social care and so on.

I have not forgotten the adult social care negotiating body or the school support staff negotiating body but, for reasons I set out at length in Committee and will not repeat, those bodies do not constitute collective bargaining and cannot be extended to other sectors. They are not collective bargaining, first, because the Act says they are not; secondly, because the parties have no autonomy over the subject matter, membership or procedure; and thirdly, because the Minister can overwrite the agreement or non-agreement. I therefore urge my noble friend the Minister to accept the offer of this machinery, which the Bill can keep in its back pocket until needed.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 127 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, but I am conscious that some of my comments may also be relevant to Amendment 125, which I oppose. According to the latest LFS figures, 6.4 million people hold a union card, making trade unionism by far the largest democratic membership movement in the UK. Many of Britain’s most innovative companies recognise trade unions and the real value that an independent voice for workers adds, including Rolls-Royce, Uber, Virgin Media and EDF Renewables, to name but a few. We have heard on several occasions how union membership has declined since the 1980s, and no doubt we can debate the reasons for that. But it is also worth recording that the ONS’s annual survey of hours and earnings, which is a survey of employers, shows that today the pay of more than four in 10 jobs in the UK is set with reference to a union agreement. In other words, collective bargaining still sets the pace for the pay and conditions of a substantial part of the workforce, well beyond union membership—but expanding collective bargaining coverage has never been more urgent. OECD analysis shows that the UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe. The picture on wealth inequality is even worse. That is bad for society and a brake on fair growth. It is not just about the families who work all the hours God sends yet still rely on benefits and food banks, or that under the previous Government living standards stagnated for 15 long years, or that the real threat to the survival of pubs, hospitality and small businesses on the high street is the prolonged squeeze on disposable income that has hammered consumer spending. It is more than that. Ever since the previous Government’s austerity cuts, Brexit, and then Covid, there has been growing public anger that sacrifice has not been equally shared. The so-called trickle-down theory of economics has proven to be an elaborate con. To take one glaring example, in the financial year from 2023, the CEO of the outsourced services giant Mitie was paid nearly £15 million. That is 575 times that of a median worker at the company. I challenge any noble Lord to justify that. Some noble Lords opposite may not like what trade unions stand for. In the other place, their party joined Reform in voting against better sick pay, an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts, and protection against fire and rehire. But when it comes to collective bargaining, I have yet to hear the Opposition come up with a better plan for workers so that workers can win a fairer share of the wealth that, after all, they helped create. Perhaps we can hear an alternative today. In the meantime, as we have heard, the evidence is clear: when individual workers combine their working power, they are much more likely to win better pay, safety, skills training, family-friendly policies, workforce engagement and, ultimately, higher productivity—a good deal for workers and for their employers. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the Government’s plan to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body and to establish a fair pay agreement for social care. This could be transformative, not only for the workforce but for the service and everyone who relies on its dedicated care. But we cannot stop there. We can debate the detail, but at the heart of my noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendment is the objective to spread the benefits of collective bargaining to more sectors of the economy. That would provide a level playing field for business, lift living standards, improve workforce well-being and boost company productivity, which in turn would aid fair growth. In her response to the debate in Committee on 5 June, my noble friend Lady Jones, the Minister, said that the Government “intend to learn from the first fair pay agreement process … before considering rolling out agreements in other areas”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; col. 943.] I understand the concern to learn from the success of the commitments already contained within the Bill, but it would seem sensible to take powers to introduce more sectoral agreements now, so that the Government are ready to act quickly in the future. I know that the Government understand the absolute urgency of the need to tackle inequality in this country, to get living standards rising and to boost business investment in skills and productivity. Sectoral collective agreements are one of the quickest, most flexible and most effective ways to do just that. But, in the meantime, will my noble friend the Minister kindly undertake to facilitate a meeting with the relevant Cabinet Office Minister to explore how government procurement social value rules can promote fair work and a collective voice for workers?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for directing our attention to collective bargaining, its historic importance in our national life and its relevance today. Many in this Chamber today might know that the hero of establishing that collective bargaining system, which has been talked about by others, in 1928 was Stanley Baldwin, who was concerned about the excesses in the boardrooms of Britain. He regarded a lot of directors as profiteers. He promoted collective bargaining and trade unions as an antidote to that kind of greed. We now have another era of excessive boardroom remuneration and, in the absence of strong collective bargaining, too many boards do not seem restrained at all by the possible reaction of their workforce—and, boy, do they take advantage. More collective bargaining would help check this greed. A start has been made. I will not go into the technicalities, but a start is made in the Bill’s provisions on fair pay agreements, including in the social care and school support staff sectors. We need a major step-up in British employment relations. We need a new system to improve productivity, investment and training. We need a new system based not on short-termism but on respect and investment in skills and capital. We need a new system which puts “them and us” behind us and bases itself on priorities, consultation and more equality. Once this Bill—which does rebalance relations in this country to a considerable extent—is put to bed I ask the Government to go further and build an ambitious system which raises the national game. We can all do better in this country.

My Lords, in response to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, I want to explore the fact that we currently have strong representation from the unions. We have seen, through recent strikes, that there is an ability to go out there and voice your opinion. My worry—I would like to have this recorded—as a businessperson, as my registered interests lay out, is that most of the businesses impacted will be SMEs, which are already predominantly very good employers. Most small and medium-sized businesses work with their workforce. We all wish to do well because we want better productivity, and it is not in our interests not to do so. I remind noble Lords that my own grandfather was one of the founders of the Indian Workers’ Association because, at that time, unions were not properly representing minority communities. My worry is that we are going to go back to a place where people from minority communities, who do not actually know whether they have a choice to be part of a union or not, will have to come back into a union—whether or not they know that they are a member. I want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, how that would be clarified. There will be many from minority communities who work incredibly hard, are ambitious and aspirational, and want to end up owning their own business, who find that working and learning from employers is the best way to do it. I fully support my noble friend’s amendment because I think that the world has moved on so much. Technology has enabled us to do so many things differently so that we are far more able to hold employers to account. There is no place to hide for bad employers. I do not think that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, will actually make a lot of difference to today’s workforce, as we are using a lot of new technologies to be able to make sure that the workplace is a much fairer place.

I do not really recognise the workplace that the noble Baroness describes. The fact of the matter is that only some—

I think I am right in saying the Companion says that the noble Lord is not allowed to speak twice in the debate as he has not moved the amendment.

Maybe I could say what I think the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was going to say. The workplace is not necessarily quite as put. Both my grandmothers were businesspeople in their own right, with small businesses. The one we always call my English grandmother—because she was not the Irish one—was asked towards the end of her life whom she thought were the best politicians. She, rather like her grandson, had managed to vote for all the parties before she died. She said that the greatest politician in Britain was Stanley Baldwin, because he cooled down Britain after the general strike and, as she used to put it, he got rid of our Nazi King. So I have a lot of time for Stanley Baldwin. He is also one of my heroes, and the fact of the matter is that this is a thoroughly good amendment. Collective bargaining is a thoroughly good thing, and I hope I have not misrepresented too much what I think my friend was about to say.

19:00:00

I want to intervene very briefly to reflect on the difference between the debate this afternoon and the debate we had at the time of the P&O disaster—I call it a disaster for all the people who were basically sacked. It was very difficult to get information about what was right and what was wrong, and who was their employer. We were fed a load of, frankly, bad information from the company, and we got some good information from the trade unions. Let us just reflect, however, on what my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lady O’Grady said about how things have changed. It would have been wonderful if we had heard their speeches before we debated P&O, because the problem is still just as bad and still needs resolving. I am very glad to welcome these two people in particular, and I hope we will hear much more from them.

Will noble Lords allow me to say a word in support? I was a little late coming in because I misread the screen; I thought we were on Amendment 122. I support my noble friend’s Amendment 125 because it would reinforce the individual freedom of the workplace and the freedom of contract, and it would protect access to statutory rights. I say this in response to some of the points made about what other arrangements could be in place. I will refer to one law firm commenting on the importance of freedom of contract in our laws. It reflected—

I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness in full flow. She said she was not here for the start of the debate on the group, so it would be a courtesy to the House to leave it at that.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke—my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lady O’Grady, Lord Monks and Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, tabled Amendment 125, which seeks to give workers the right to opt out of collective agreements. Workers are free to join or not to join a trade union. It is their choice. They are not compelled to pay any union subscriptions, or any part thereof, where a union is recognised by the employer for collective bargaining purposes—so they do not need to pay any union subscription or join a union. Many employers choose to recognise a union voluntarily. One advantage of trade union recognition is that this enables the employer to negotiate collective agreements, the terms of which may apply to all workers in a workplace. My noble friend Lord Hendy explained so clearly the principles of collective agreements—he said all that I needed to say. The application of the terms of collective agreements to workers generally depends, in any event, on incorporation of those terms into the workers’ contracts, either expressly or by implication. That is the normal position. But providing some individual workers with a new statutory right to withdraw from the provisions agreed under a collective agreement, even where they can rely on statutory entitlements, would create an unnecessary risk of a multi-tier system, with workers on different terms and conditions of employment. We believe that this would not be beneficial to employers as it would likely create more red tape and confusion. We cannot, therefore, support this amendment. Amendment 127 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. We welcome any support for sectoral collective bargaining and we appreciate the informed and wide-ranging debate we had in Committee on these points. We are demonstrating our commitment to sectoral collective bargaining with the social care and school support staff sectors, as was debated on the earlier group. We believe that bespoke primary legislation will be required to allow such bodies to operate as effectively as possible. This will allow Parliament to fully consider any such sectors and scrutinise the frameworks for the new bargaining processes. We welcome all representation regarding next steps on sectoral collective bargaining, and we are working hard to consider the groundwork required for future models. However, before this work is done, we do not seek the sweeping powers that my noble friend’s amendment aims to give the Secretary of State without a sufficiently clear purpose or plan. I say to my noble friend Lord Hendy that we are committed to supporting sectoral collective bargaining where appropriate, and we recognise the positive contribution it can make to Britain’s economy. However, different sectors will have different needs, so we need to ensure that any legislation on collective bargaining is fit for purpose for each of the specific sectors. Developing the legislation in collaboration with the sector and workers will be key to success. I hope this offers my noble friend some comfort and that he will not go further with this amendment. I referred to my noble friend Lady O’Grady, and I will ensure that I mention this to my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, the Cabinet Office Minister, so that she can organise meetings for her with officials in the department. I totally agree with the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about ethnic minority business. Most businesses are good businesses. What this Bill does is go after those minority unscrupulous businesses that exploit workers. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 125.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this brief debate. I confess that I will have to go back and bone up on my Stanley Baldwin history—I was not expecting that. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, accused me of ignorance of industrial relations. He asked why anyone would agree to detrimental terms, but that is missing the point, I fear. We are saying that they should be allowed to agree to different terms. Why should a worker not be allowed to trade some holiday entitlement for extra pay, for example? We agree that we need significantly less litigation. We have been discussing that throughout the passage of the Bill. Unfortunately, as we have also discussed, so much of the Bill is likely to lead to rather more. I was very interested in the noble Lord’s comments about the workforce up until 1990, but my noble friend Lady Verma hit the nail on the head when she talked about small businesses. The fact is that the workplace has changed so dramatically in the last 35 years that I do not think that necessarily remains a valid comparison. We have argued that free negotiation between employers and employees must be the foundation of any fair and modern employment framework. But we regret that what we see here is a model rooted in uniformity and prescription. That is flawed not just in detail but in principle, because a one-size-fits-all approach flattens the complexity and diversity of real working life and ignores the dignity and agency of the individual. Having said that, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, carefully and, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 125.

Amendment 125 withdrawn.

Amendment 126

Moved by

126: After Clause 54, insert the following new Clause— “Chapter 4Industrial undertakingsRestriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakingsIn section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of women, young persons, and children in industrial undertakings), at the end of subsection (1) insert “(but voluntary work on a heritage railway or heritage tramway is not employment in an industrial undertaking)”.”

My Lords, Amendment 126 stands in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The amendment is identical to one which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I proposed in Committee, although noble Lords may have noticed that we have swapped round: whereas he served as the driver in Committee and I took on the role of fireman, shovelling extra fuel into the firebox, we have now swapped places, and a more diligent and experienced secondman I could not hope for. We are very glad to have support from the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches as well, from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The Minister very kindly arranged a helpful meeting with us following the debate we had in Committee, and we are very grateful to him and to his officials, as well as to colleagues from the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road, for the time they gave us. Our helpful discussion highlighted the very good relationship that the heritage railway sector has with its regulators. The Heritage Railway Association, for instance, works closely with the ORR to produce guidance and examples of best practice for its members across the country. As we set out in Committee, this is a sector that takes its responsibilities to its staff, its volunteers and its visitors very seriously, and which is scrupulous in following the laws and regulations that govern it. That brings us to the problem that our amendment seeks to remedy. While there have been helpful assurances from the regulators that they would not rely on outdated legislation as the basis for a prosecution regarding the use of young volunteers, the statute book says otherwise, thanks to a law passed more than a century ago seeking to protect women and children in the decimated workforce that the country found in the aftermath of the First World War. Let me briefly restate the problem. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 makes it unlawful to employ young people under the age of 16 on the railways. That 1920 Act was passed more than 30 years before the first preserved railway started operation with the aid of volunteers, but by slightly confused extension through later legislation, the work the Act prohibits includes unpaid work by volunteers—far from what the original Act envisaged. This has had a chilling effect on the responsible law-abiding businesses and charitable organisations that look after this important part of our national heritage. So concerned were they that in 2015, the Heritage Railway Association sought counsel’s opinion, which confirmed that the 1920 Act remained in force and that it was unlawful to allow volunteers under 16 to undertake voluntary work on a heritage railway or tramway. For the past decade, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has been seeking to put that right. The Private Member’s Bill that he brought in during the last Parliament passed all its stages in your Lordships’ House without amendment, but was regrettably not taken up in another place, so did not become law. It did, however, win some important and helpful reassurances from the regulators, but these do not have statutory force and do not cover the threat of civil action or of prosecution by other public authorities. I stress that nobody in the sector wants to be accused of misapplying the law. If the law is unclear, it is our duty to clarify it, rather than asking voluntary organisations to spend many hours and many thousands of pounds trying to disentangle the confusion that legislators have caused. The amendment that the noble Lords and I have brought is deliberately very narrowly framed. It seeks to make it clear that voluntary work on a heritage railway or tramway is not to be considered “employment in an industrial undertaking” for the purposes of the 1920 Act. It leaves that Act on the statute book. The Minister mentioned in Committee a case some 16 years ago in which the Act was used in connection with the illegal employment of a child in a factory. We can see its importance in such cases, but these are a world away from the volunteering that we want to encourage in young people in our heritage sector. The benefits of such volunteering are manifold. It helps young people to gain valuable experience and life skills, which will help them in their future employment. It brings people together across the generations and from diverse backgrounds to celebrate our shared heritage and to keep it alive for the benefit of future generations. It is an essential boost to the organisations that look after that shared heritage, which operate on very tight margins and in the face of many other challenges. On Friday, I had the great pleasure of visiting, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, the touring exhibition “Inspiration”, which is travelling the length and breadth of Britain by rail throughout this anniversary year, when we mark the bicentenary of the first passenger rail journey. Over two days at Waterloo this weekend alone, it welcomed more than 1,400 people, not just telling them the proud story of our industrial past but showing how they can get involved in the future of our railways, as coders, camera operators, ecologists, weather analysts and so much more, and how they can help to write the next exciting chapter of our railways. The exhibition in those carriages is brilliantly targeted at schoolchildren in school years 7 to 9—the time when they are choosing the subjects that will steer them towards their future careers. These are exactly the young people whose passion our heritage railways want to ignite, to help them in whatever direction life takes them. The unintended consequence of this Act of Parliament, passed more than a century ago, stands in the way of unleashing that potential. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has campaigned long and hard for it to be remedied. I do hope that his noble friend the Minister is able to help do that today. I beg to move.

19:15:00

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for making an excellent speech which I could very easily have made myself—there was nothing in it with which I disagreed. He rightly referred to the fact that he and I tabled an identical amendment in Committee. We have come back tonight because this issue really has to be settled one way or another. I have previously declared my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association. I should also say that I am the sponsor each year of an HRA award for young volunteers, to encourage a continued influx of young people to learn the skills and enjoy the satisfaction that working on a steam railway brings. Last month, in my role as president of the HRA and co-chair of the All-Party Group on Heritage Rail, I was fortunate enough to take part in the 70th anniversary celebrations of the Ffestiniog Railway in north Wales, which was brilliantly organised and fitted in admirably with National Rail’s Railway 200 programme. It involved a cavalcade of every steam locomotive that the railway possesses, in procession on the Cob in Porthmadog, and it was a very fine tribute to the railway’s history and its contribution to the economy of north Wales. I met many young people who are keen to join the railway but are prevented from doing so because of their age, and I took the opportunity also to talk to older volunteers who are now part of the very successful team on the Ffestiniog. Almost without exception, those older volunteers started at ages as young as 13, back in the 1970s, in blissful ignorance of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920—an Act which, frankly, had disappeared from public consciousness. Indeed, many were involved in the hard physical labour of building the deviation that some of your Lordships may know, which allowed the railway to be carried above the waterline of a new reservoir to reach the northern terminus of Blaenau Ffestiniog. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, once the HRA received the wholly unwelcome advice that the 1920 Act had been interpreted to extend to under-16s and included volunteering as well as paid work, things changed. The safety regulators have made it clear that they would not prosecute under the 1920 Act and would maintain safety and safeguarding under more recent and appropriate legislation; but if that is so, I have to ask why this anachronistic legislation is still on the statute book. I am most grateful to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Katz, for the discussions he initiated with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and me on this, and I know how sympathetic he is to the points we have been making. I understand that the possibility of further guidance from the safety regulators remains, but that guidance must be reinforced by statutory force, because while the 1920 Act is in force, responsible Heritage Railway managers will not wish to break it. Even if the ORR would not prosecute, what is to stop a local authority or a parent doing so? It is time to make things clear and simple by removing this outdated restriction that is holding heritage railways back from encouraging the next generation, preventing them enjoying the opportunities that so many leading figures in the railway heritage movement had as youngsters.

My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief. I put my name to this amendment in the spirit of support for our heritage, of which our heritage railways are a significant part. We need to do everything we can to allow young people who wish to do so to work as volunteers in this area. I hope that the Government will look favourably on this amendment.

My Lords, I have played no part in this Bill, but I have come in especially for this amendment—although I voted on an earlier one. However, my elder brother was a passionate railway supporter, and he would have been horrified if he had realised that any support that he could give would have been illegal. Respectfully, it is no use the Minister saying that guidance shows that they will not prosecute. The fact is that the law forbids it. Speaking as a former lawyer, if the law forbids it, no respectable organisation should allow it to go forward. It does not matter that the advice is that you will not be prosecuted. If, in the future, a 13 year-old is a passionate supporter and a different member of the organisation who looks after this says, “We must prosecute”, the fact that they have been told they would not be prosecuted would not be the slightest defence in a court of law. This is the important thing. It is anachronistic, as has been said, and it is time it was changed. I hope the Minister is not going to offer the bromide that it does not matter because it will not happen. The law has to be obeyed, and we cannot have government departments saying that you can shut your eyes to a piece of law.

My Lords, I support this amendment wholeheartedly. I have attended many meetings of the heritage rail group, and I congratulate my noble friend on the way he has taken it forward. One thing we have not mentioned is the quite regular reports from members who run the small railways about the fear of breaking the law and the effect it could have if there are legal cases and they run out of money. Most of them are very short of money, and they rely on as much voluntary work as they possibly can. The thought of being taken to court—whether it is by the regulator, which is unlikely, as my noble friend says, or others—really puts them off welcoming younger people. It is the fear of legal action against a voluntary organisation which is the most serious part of this debate.

My Lords, the incredible thing about this amendment is that it has signatures and support from the Conservative Benches, the Labour Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches. It is something the Government should take into account. It is not some weird idea from one part of this House, it is across the House. I applaud the initiative which started with my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—if he would allow me to say that. The principle here is to try to stop unintended consequences. The law is as it is, and it cannot be ignored. We have an opportunity to tweak the employment rights legislation to put that right. We are dealing with young people who are doing voluntary work on the railways. There was an incredible programme on television recently—which I referred to in a previous speech—where the young people were doing all the jobs on this heritage railway, except running the engine, which was dangerous and they were not allowed to do; they were the porters, the inspectors, et cetera. We all gain from it: the young people gain from it and the community gains from it. However, there is a possibility that someone could be prosecuted because the law says what it does. We are not talking about one small heritage railway. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, there are many; he mentioned the Ffestiniog Railway—if I pronounced that correctly. There is also the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, the Bluebell Railway, the West Somerset Railway, the Middleton Railway, the Spa Valley Railway, and many others. There is a long list. This is a very understated thing. People have asked me why I signed the amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Parkinson; I told them it was because we are dealing with real matters of the moment in the employment rights legislation. This is an opportunity to put right a small error in history. I invite everybody, if we go to a vote, to support this.

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay’s amendment, supported as it has been by very effective speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, Lord Berkeley and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It is a sensible measure that recognises the value of voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways, especially for young people. The current statutory framework treats such activity as though it were employment in a heavy industrial setting, when in reality it is community-based, educational and often intergenerational. These are voluntary efforts undertaken not for profit but for preservation, learning and public enjoyment. To continue to classify this as if it were unsafe or exploitive is to misunderstand both the activity and its value. This amendment corrects that without undermining the original protections of the 1920 Act. My noble friends deserve support, and I hope the Government are about to respond positively.

My Lords, it was going so well, then it hit the buffers. I am trying to make that not the last of the rail-related jokes—noble Lords will note the groans from behind me. I thank noble Lords for a stimulating debate—as we had in Committee—and, as several speakers have pointed out, it was a debate on a subject that inspires support from across the House, which is fairly unique in this piece of legislation. It is good to see and is obviously because so many in your Lordships’ House—like those in the rest of the country—enjoy and revel in our industrial heritage, as seen through heritage railways. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for bringing the amendment back for further discussion. I think it was the noble Lord himself who outed me as a bit of a rail nerd in Committee, so noble Lords will know that heritage railways is an issue I am familiar with and fully support. It is an issue close to many hearts here in your Lordships’ house and it is great to see the interest we saw in the impassioned debate—it says here, and I agree—repeated here on Report. In addition to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, I thank my noble friends Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Berkeley, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I particularly thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for making a little detour from her usual route to call by our station here tonight. The UK heritage rail sector encompasses more than 170 operational railways, running trains over nearly 600 miles of track and operating between some 460 stations. It creates jobs and greatly supports local economies. I pay tribute to all those who run and maintain those railways; they not only preserve our heritage but contribute greatly to their local tourist economies. I mention this because it is notwithstanding the issues identified by this amendment. The heritage railways are incredibly successful; they go from strength to strength, notwithstanding the issue the amendment raises about the Heritage Railway Association’s concerns. The benefits to all volunteers cannot be overestimated. However, as many speakers have said, it is particularly good for young people, and I wholeheartedly support efforts to encourage young people to take advantage of the volunteering opportunities that heritage railways offer, with their emphasis on teamwork, communication and helping to bring science and engineering topics to life. It is vital that any work or volunteering is carried out safely and should be appropriate to the age and experience of the volunteer. It is also important to recognise that additional measures, such as effective supervision, need to be in place for young people, particularly those aged 14 to 16. Health and safety law requires heritage railway operators to protect a young person’s health and safety, taking account of their age, lack of experience and levels of maturity. Of course, not all work is suitable for young people; dangerous or high-risk work activities should not be carried out. Health and safety risk assessments help heritage railway operators to determine what work activity should be carried out and how to make sure it is done safely. After all, we want to preserve and revive heritage railways, not heritage employment practices. While the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road provide general guidance, it is for the Heritage Railway Association to support its operators with detailed guidance about suitable activities for young people.

19:30:00

Now over a century old, the 1920 Act is intended to protect young people from working in dangerous or high-risk industrial settings. To accept the noble Lord’s amendment, which exempts only heritage railways as an industrial setting, would not remove all the employment restrictions for young people. There are many other pieces of legislation and local authority by-laws that interact with, or depend on, the 1920 Act. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prohibits child employment under the age of 14 and restricts any work to “light work”. The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 and the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 make similar provisions.

In addition, there are nearly 400 local authorities and councils throughout the United Kingdom and each one may make individual by-laws in relation to employment of children over the age of 13. In most cases, councils have a common approach, prohibiting a variety of roles, such as delivering milk or working in a commercial kitchen or licensed betting shop. However, there can be differences. An example can be seen in two neighbouring councils, Liverpool City Council and Sefton Borough Council, in which employment as an assistant in a fairground amusement arcade is specifically listed as prohibited in one, whereas, in the other council, it is not.

I raise this simply to point out that there is a very complex landscape at play and dealing with simply the 1920 Act will not necessarily be a cure-all. To resolve all this will need a thorough cross-government review and it will have to be fully considered in the case of any impact this amendment would unintentionally or inadvertently have on the legislative framework for the protection of children from unsuitable work. In order to ensure that there are no undesirable or unintended consequences, any power would need to be a wide Henry VIII power to allow at least the 1933 Act, and its equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to be amended, together with any by-laws that had been made by local authorities—otherwise, the other effects of the substantive provisions that remain in the 1933 Act would continue.

There is some misunderstanding that the 1920 Act makes it wholly unlawful for young people to volunteer on heritage railways or tramways. While it prevents young people undertaking higher-risk work, such as railway construction or maintenance activities, it does not preclude them from all volunteering roles within a heritage railway. To be clear, the 1920 Act does not prevent young people volunteering if they are carrying out appropriate activities.

As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, said, the Office of Rail and Road already works with the Heritage Railway Association to make sure that effective health and safety risk assessments are in place. They behave responsibly and it is fair to say that this amendment comes from a place of good stewardship and good intention on their part. In fact, I understand there are already many heritage railways that are excellent examples of running youth volunteer schemes very successfully. Last year, the Talyllyn railway in north Wales won the Heritage Railway Association team of the year award for its work with families and young volunteers. The volunteers are known as “Tracksiders” and work in supervised groups on projects such as painting, fencing, clearing undergrowth, building and maintaining footpaths and supporting events held on the railway.

Tracksiders are not involved in the operating of any trains or higher-risk workshop activities, and they all have regular safety briefings. Talyllyn also has a development scheme aimed at 14 to 16 year-olds, in preparation for when they can carry out more difficult tasks. The scheme includes training on preparing a steam locomotive and passenger carriages, being taught how to light up an engine, learning the route, signals and personal track safety. Another good example is the Sygnets youth volunteering group at Swanage railway. Established in 1997, this group has seen generations of young volunteers gain valuable skills and experience. In other words, the existence of the 1920 Act has not in the past—and, I hazard, will not in the future—prevent such schemes being run in the heritage railways sector.

This is not a new issue and I know my noble friend Lord Faulkner has championed this for a number of years, particularly through proposing Private Members’ Bills on a number of occasions to repeal or amend the 1920 Act. The last time, in 2022, the Bill received much support from this House and, although it did not progress further, there was a commitment from the Government to support the Heritage Railway Association in refreshing its guidance. Despite that offer being made, as far as we can tell, the Heritage Railway Association has not yet taken it up.

Although there is strong dialogue between the Heritage Railway Association and the regulators, let me be clear to your Lordships’ House that the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive remain willing to support the Heritage Railway Association and help heritage railway operators fully understand the risk assessment process and what activities are suitable for young people. I reiterate that I believe this is the best way to resolve the matter before trying to unravel the complex and long-standing legislation. Our position remains fully in support of volunteering on heritage railways and of growing the sector, but we are respectfully of the view that this amendment is not necessary—so I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 126.

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short but important debate, particularly to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who spoke with great clarity and authority about the legal problem that we are trying to fix. No responsible director or trustee wants to be put in the position of breaking the law, even if regulators or Ministers say that they will look the other way. The Minister shares the passion of all noble Lords who spoke for the heritage rail sector. We saw that in our helpful meeting and in the first part of his speech today. He suggested in his closing remarks that it is for organisations such as the Heritage Railway Association to do the work: provide the guidance, take the risk and tell their members what to do. But the statutory problem remains. I stress that the Heritage Railway Association has a very good working relationship with the regulators. They have met since the letter that the Minister mentioned and they provide guidance. However, leaving this untidy situation on the statute book leaves them open to risk by civil action and prosecution by other local authorities, and in the invidious position of having to break the law, or appear to do so. The Minister rightly mentioned other pieces of legislation which it may be important to look at, and said that we need a thorough cross-government review. This problem has been looked at for a decade by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the Heritage Railway Association and others, and there have been efforts to get that thorough cross-government review—under successive Governments, I admit. So I suggest that we put the noble Lord’s very modest amendment in the Bill and seek to expedite that work. I know that, with his great interest and passion in this area, the Minister can help us reach a happy solution. However, it is important that we get started and I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

2|19:38|216|143|Division on Amendment 126|Amendment 126 agreed.||0|0

19:48:00

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.28 pm.