Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)

My Lords, in moving Motion C, I will speak to Motions K, K1, N and N1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to special constables, heritage railway volunteers and the school support staff negotiating body. The Government have listened carefully and openly to the concerns raised by noble Lords and Members of the House of Commons who have engaged extensively on these issues. I will speak first on special constables and to Motion C, relating to Amendment 21 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This amendment would give employees who are special constables the right to reasonable time off to carry out their police duties. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Paddick, and Sir Ashley Fox MP for their championing and advocacy on this important issue. I am pleased to say that the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place to address this matter. This Government recognise and value the role that special constables play in keeping our communities safe—a role that has been highlighted by the campaign led by the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. The amendment makes a statutory commitment to undertake a full review of the list of duties captured under Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and to publish a summary of the findings of the review within 12 months of Royal Assent, with specific reference to special constables. The Government have existing powers to deliver any updates to the list as a result of the review via secondary legislation. As my officials have discussed with the noble Lord, the review is already under way and will consider whether the current list of eligible roles remains fit for purpose and whether any changes should be made, including the case that noble Lords have put forward to add special constables to the list. The review will consider whether changes to the list will deliver the intended support for public services and assess the potential impact on businesses. I hope this provides reassurances to noble Lords about our commitment to review this legislation fully, including in relation to special constables, as we all want to see them supported in performing their important duties. I thank the noble Lord for championing this matter in earlier debates, and I ask for his support for this amendment in lieu. I now turn to Motion K, relating to Amendment 60, and Motion K1, relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their continued engagement on this important subject. While we recognise the important contribution that these volunteers make, noble Lords will know that the Government could not accept the original amendment as it risked creating inconsistencies within the broader legislative framework governing young people and volunteer work. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling his amendment in lieu and seeking to find common ground. While we have concerns with the current drafting, the Government consider that targeted guidance for heritage railways can address his practical concerns, without the need for a legislative exemption, and support the intent of his amendment. This is why the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered to work with the Heritage Railway Association to produce written guidance for heritage railways, which will support them in actively encouraging 14 to 16 year-olds to take up volunteer opportunities on their railways. We are grateful to the HRA for its prompt response in relation to this offer and look forward to working with it on the guidance. This guidance will have an equivalent status to that of other similar material published by both the ORR and the HSE. It will provide an authoritative benchmark for heritage railways of what we consider to be reasonable activities for children to undertake. Importantly, this will provide a benchmark for regulatory inspectors when making enforcement decisions. We would make it clear in the published document that following the guidance would not be compulsory and railways would be free to take other action, but that if they followed the guidance then they would normally be doing enough to satisfy the law. The Government are committed to this guidance. Both the ORR and the HSE agree that this work is a priority. Our officials are ready to begin work with the HRA on preparing the guidance, with an intention to publish it by 31 March 2026. As I mentioned, the noble Lord’s amendment has some drafting deficiencies. For example, it requires an instruction to be given to the ORR and the HSE on the day of Royal Assent, which would actually slow down the timeline agreed with the HRA. At this stage, there is little that divides us. We are keen to continue our discussions with relevant parties ahead of the Bill being further considered in the other place in order to resolve the matter. The Government will therefore not oppose this amendment today. I now turn to Motion N, which addresses Amendment 121 on the school support staff negotiating body, or SSSNB, and Motion N1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The proposed amendment in lieu would allow employers to employ support staff on pay and other terms and conditions that are below statutory minimums agreed by the SSSNB provided that their overall package of terms and conditions of employment meets or exceeds collective statutory minimums on an aggregate basis. I understand that this was a point the noble Baroness wished to make on Report, though her original amendment actually offered an alternative form of words to a provision that the Government brought forward for the purposes of clarification. This new amendment would require employers to assess the relative values of different terms and conditions on a case-by-case basis. Such an arrangement would result in uncertainty for employees and remove the protection offered by statutory minimums. Ensuring a consistent flow for all support staff terms and conditions is fundamental to the purpose of SSSNB.