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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which raises an important topic: how the enforcement provisions in Part 5 would apply to Parliament and MPs as employers. Parliament must of course comply with employment legislation. However, the Bill provides that the powers of entry in Part 5 cannot be exercised in relation to “premises occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament”; otherwise, Part 5 would apply to both Houses of Parliament and to MPs as employers. We are in danger of having something similar to—but slightly less than—a deep constitutional crisis, because the approach was agreed on the advice of the House authorities. It is therefore not a government decision; it is a decision made by the House authorities. They are more powerful, as far as I can see, and they can therefore overrule what the Government may think about all this. This approach is not unusual. It aligns with recent precedents, such as Section 165(1)(a) of the Building Safety Act 2022, to respect parliamentary privilege. In this case, Parliament has to comply with employment legislation. The only issue raised here is about the power of entry not applying to the Parliamentary Estate. The noble Baroness might understand why we want to make sure that the Parliamentary Estate is secure from that challenge, and there is probably another place where she could raise her concerns about employment in the Parliamentary Estate. I have some sympathy with some of the cases that she argued about, but I suggest that she sees the House authorities about them. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.