Baroness Stowell of Beeston:

Moved by Baroness Stowell of Beeston

359: After Clause 124, insert the following new Clause—“Assault of public-facing worker(1) A person who assaults a public-facing worker at work commits an offence under this section.(2) For the purposes of this section—“public-facing worker at work” means a person who is providing a service or facilitating a transaction to the public in a public building or space, on public transport, or in a commercial property which is accessible to the public to buy or receive such services;“worker” includes an unpaid employee.(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or to a fine (or both).(4) In subsection (3) “the maximum term for summary offences” means—(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales) comes into force, six months;(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.(5) In section 40(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (power to join in indictment count for common assault etc) after paragraph (ac) insert—“(ad) an offence under section (Assault of a public-facing worker) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of public-facing worker).””Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment would expand the provisions of Clauses 38 and 39 (assault of a retail worker) to include all public-facing workers.

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 359 and will also speak to Amendment 361, both of which are in my name. I am hugely grateful to my co-signatories, the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lady Harding, and I thank them for their support. I am also grateful to the Minister for meeting me and his noble friend Lord Hendy. I am only sorry that at that meeting we were unable to persuade him of our case, and I hope I can do a better job tonight.

My amendments replicate Clauses 38 and 39, which introduce a new stand-alone offence of assault against retail workers, but simply expand that offence to include all public-facing workers. I am bringing these amendments forward because the Government’s decision to make the new stand-alone offence exclusively for retail workers is based on arbitrary factors that make little sense, risks making matters worse for employers and employees alike and does not help address the cause of increased violence and disorder in public places and spaces, which causes us all so much angst. In a moment I will explain briefly how my amendments help to address the latter, but let me start with what is wrong with the Government’s approach and how my amendments can help put it right.

As we all know, the crime of assault applies equally to anyone who is a victim of it. No one is not covered by existing law. But four years ago, we introduced an aggravated offence of assault against all public-facing workers via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act because violence and threats of violence to workers across all industries—retail, transport, hospitality, finance and more—were rising at a worrying rate. Now this Government argue that they are introducing a new crime of assault against only retail workers because violent abuse in shops continues to rise and because those workers are charged with upholding retail Laws such as those involving age verification.

Of course it is horrific that some retail workers experience violence at work. They do not deserve that, and we all want it to stop. That is why I support Clauses 38 and 39. But other public-facing workers are experiencing increasing violence too. Many of these workers are also responsible for upholding laws and are required to take action when a member of the public flouts them, which they increasingly do. The most obvious example is transport workers and the scourge of fare dodging, but bar staff also routinely need to seek age verification.

The Institute of Customer Service—I declare my interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Customer Service—has been tracking abuse against all public-facing workers for almost six years. Its most recent survey data from 15,000 responses shows that 42% of customer-facing workers experienced abuse in the preceding six months.

The problem that the Government have highlighted as one they need to fix is not affecting retail workers exclusively. Indeed, some of the worst cases of violence in a public place are against utility workers doing essential work on streets. Yet the Government’s approach even excludes those who work in bank branches, post offices and other outlets on high streets or in retail parks. What makes matters worse is that those workers fear they will not be treated equally if they are a victim of crime because they will fall outside the definition of a retail worker.

We need good people in these front-line jobs who are doing great work to want to stay in these jobs. But the Government’s arbitrary dividing line means we are in danger of losing them. That is not just bad for those workers: it is bad for customers, and it is bad for business. Sick leave associated with abuse and violence experienced at work is estimated to cost the economy at least £1 billion every year.

I must say at this point that we must not lose sight that, thankfully, most public-facing workers are not at risk of assault. Indeed, it is really important to make clear that customers are not the enemy, and we must not create an environment where, even unintentionally, they are made to feel like they are. We do not need more signs telling us not to be rude or abusive, but we do need a new approach. Alongside a better response from the police when crimes do occur, if we are to prevent violence against workers and any criminal conduct in public places becoming normalised, we must work together to discourage low-level disorder and disrespect for shared services and public property when we see signs of it taking root on our high streets, public transport or anywhere else. But that requires leadership from the people in charge of those public spaces and places. Most often, they are not the workers who are the highest paid.

It is not easy to uphold the shared standards and social norms that keep public spaces safe and orderly for everyone’s benefit, which is why those who are out there at work every day upholding the law and doing their best to maintain the common bonds that underpin a strong society do not just deserve our thanks: they need our strong backing for the leadership they are expected to give—and we need them to give—if we are to tackle disorder, which blights our communities. That is what my amendments seek to provide.

Excluding some workers from the cover of this new stand-alone offence risks disincentivising those excluded at a time when we need them most. Business leaders, workers and the wider public support these amendments. I hope that the members of unions and the former leaders of unions who occupy the Benches opposite will also support them. I hope the Minister accepts them. If he does not, I will seek to divide the House. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 359 and 361 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. On the basis of those amendments, I will not advance the Amendment I proposed in Committee for a stand-alone offence for transport workers. My amendment sought to give transport workers equivalent protection to that to be extended to retail workers by the Government in Clauses 38 and 39, but the noble Baroness’s amendments cover transport workers, retail workers and, as she mentioned, many more categories of workers who face the public and are exposed to the risk of violent attack by individuals apparently aggrieved by a worker doing what he or she is paid to do.

In proposing these more widely drafted amendments, there is no intention to diminish the coverage the Government are already offering retail workers. If there is some perceived shortfall in the scope of our amendments compared with that of Clauses 38 and 39 for retail workers, I for one would be very happy if the Government instructed parliamentary counsel to close that gap in drafting.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and me to discuss the amendments, notwithstanding that, as she says, he was not persuaded by us. With respect, I am likewise not persuaded by my noble friend’s justification for restricting the scope of the offence under discussion to retail workers only. The commitment given in the Labour manifesto would be equally fulfilled by adoption of our amendments in place of Clauses 38 and 39. Retail workers would have, and must still have, their manifesto protection. In any event, though it may result in duplication, our amendments do not involve a request to remove Clauses 38 and 39. That is not their purpose.

As to the argument that the wider amendment is not necessary, I point out that even if that were legally correct, the adoption of Clauses 38 and 39 and the rejection of the wider amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, sends a particular message both to the workers in question and the public, as she pointed out. She mentioned violence against various categories of public-facing workers, and I gave figures for violence against transport workers at an earlier stage of the debate. I will not repeat those, but the House should know that the situation is getting worse. For example, British Transport Police figures for the period April to November 2025 showed a 21% increase in incidents involving violence against staff compared to the previous year, which itself showed a similar increase on the year before that. The stabbings at Huntingdon in November 2025 bring the point home.

According to a survey of more than 6,000 RMT public transport worker members in summer 2025, nearly two-thirds had experienced workplace violence in the past year and nearly all of those had experienced it multiple times. Some 70% thought that violence had increased in the past year. It is intolerable that these workers, who serve the public, go to work each day with the thought that that day they might be the victim of violent assault or even death.

As with retail workers, enforcement is a key part of the role of many front-line transport workers, including in relation to fares, ticketing, railway by-Laws and age-restricted items such as alcohol. These enforcement requirements undoubtedly make public transport workers more at risk of violence and abuse. For instance, according to the RMT survey, the most common event initiating violence against them, cited by nearly two-thirds of members, was staff seeking to deal with fare evasion and underpayment for tickets.

In evidence submitted to the Bill Committee in the Commons, the British Transport Police set out its support for creating a stand-alone offence of assaulting a public transport worker and highlighted the disparity that would arise if the Government legislated to afford additional protection to retail workers but not transport workers—and, by the same token, other workers too. They said:

“This Bill seeks to introduce a new specific offence of assault of retail worker. It should be noted that if these provisions become law, this will create significant inequality in the legal response on BTP jurisdiction. At a station, the two types of workers could be working in close proximity to each other, however if both are assaulted, the law will offer a greater level of protection to the retail worker than to the transport worker. This disparity is wrong.”

The BTP evidence to the committee also pointed out that the existing statutory provision for aggravation of assault of a public-facing worker is

“not currently sufficient to provide transport workers with adequate protection.”

In closing, I point out that in Scotland, largely as a result of the RMT pushing for a stand-alone offence and action to be taken regarding assaults on the railway, last year the Scottish Government convened a working group with the rail unions, ScotRail, BTP, Transport Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on enforcement powers on the railway. The terms of reference specifically included looking at the need for additional legal protections similar to the retail workers legislation, which is already a specific offence in Scotland, and the group’s recommendations, which included exploring the scope for primary legislation —i.e. a stand-alone offence. The Scottish Government recently accepted the group’s recommendations in full. The logic applies equally to all public-facing workers.

If my noble friend is unable to agree to amend the Bill in line with the amendments, will he at least agree to setting up working groups in public transport and other public-facing sectors, in line with the approach taken in Scotland, to examine how measures to protect workers from violence can be improved, including through new legislation? The situation is indeed desperate.

My Lords, given the hour, I shall be brief. I support my noble friend Lady Stowell in the two amendments that she has so ably introduced, and I have been delighted to add my name to both of them.

I have worked all my life in consumer services: for 20-odd years in retailing, but then in telecoms and in the National Health Service, and, today, in hospitality—in horse racing. I should declare my interest as the chair or senior steward of the Jockey Club, given that we have the Cheltenham Festival next week, where we will have thousands of people in front-line, consumer-facing service roles at the racecourse.

I have not engaged in the Bill until this stage, so I apologise for that, but I am speaking to and have put my name to these amendments because I am bemused by the Government’s failure to support public-facing workers in all these other industries. I grew up in retailing and I love retailing, but if you have ever sat in a GP surgery with a receptionist, as I have, and watched them do their job, you will know that it is no different from being at the customer service desk at Tesco, which I have also done, dealing with the ups and downs of everyday life with the customers, the consumers, the citizens you are serving. We should be protecting them and treating them in exactly the same way. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has said, that is true for transport, finance, telecoms, energy and water. We should not exclude the hundreds of thousands, millions, of people who provide us with these essential services. We learned during Covid how important these essential front-line, customer service-facing roles are, and it breaks my heart, five years after the pandemic, to see a Government who say they support working people not supporting many front-line working people.

It is not just front-line working people who want us to protect them; their bosses do too. The CEOs of businesses in all the sectors I have just mentioned know that it is good business to protect them. Some 42% of front-line workers, according to the Institute of Customer Service, have experienced abuse in the last six months, as my noble friend Lady Stowell has said; 37% say they have considered leaving their role because of that hostility; and more than 25% have taken sick leave as a result. That costs productivity in our public services and it costs economic growth in our private sector. The chief executives of all these organisations know that, and they want us to make sure that we treat all those workers with the same respect that the Bill, at the moment, treats retail workers only, which is why I support these amendments.

My Lords, I have added my name to this Amendment because it is trying to achieve consistency in law. At the moment, the law protects a retail worker more, when in fact those who provide services are doing exactly the same thing. Broadly, they deal with the public and they are trying to get rules enforced. They are just trying to make sure that things work well.

My reading of the present advice on providing protection to retail workers is that they are protected if they provide goods, but not if they provide services. The consequence of that is that people who, for example, work in betting shops, theatres and cinemas do not receive the same protection that they would receive if they were providing that same retail worker service and also providing goods, and that seems inconsistent. Then there is the further group of workers that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, referred to: people who work in transport, such as taxi drivers. All of them face people who are often affected by drink or drugs, for example, and have to challenge bad behaviour, but they do not receive this protection. That seems odd. I find it odd that the Government do not want to protect that group of workers in the same way. For reasons of consistency, and because the workers I have described—those who work in betting offices, for example, where you get some pretty bad behaviour at times—deserve that protection, they ought to be included.

My final point is that although the present legislation excludes wholesale workers—should I name the companies? Perhaps not—you only get access to some of these wholesale or, I would say, retail sites by joining a club; you do not pay any money. I think we all know the ones I am talking about, where you get access to better prices merely by joining the club. Apparently, that is not retail. I think it is pretty much like retail. They still get bad behaviour on these sites. For all those reasons, I think this amendment regarding public-facing workers is a good idea and I encourage the Government to support it for the sake of consistency for those who provide services to us.

My Lords, I will be very brief, partly to remind all noble Lords that the shop workers’ union, USDAW, under Joanne Thomas, the current leader, Paddy Lillis before her and, indeed, John Hannett—the noble Lord, Lord Hannett—has campaigned for years for freedom from fear for a predominantly female workforce facing violence at work. As we have heard, that got a lot worse through Covid. At the time, USDAW was pressing for legislation; nobody listened. I have to commend the Government for listening to the campaign from the grass roots all the way up to the top of USDAW for that protection for workers in that industry.

Having said that, I have looked at the very latest figures from the Health and Safety Executive and from the Labour Force Survey, which show that public-facing workers across a number of industries, sectors and jobs disproportionately face violence at work. More than that, I have heard it from workers themselves. Bus workers, transport workers and hospitality workers have been spat at, assaulted and threatened. I also alight on transport workers, because they too perform a significant act of public service in the work they do. They often face real threats and real assaults because of the job that they do.

I share my noble friend Lord Hendy’s hope that, even if the Government cannot support this Amendment, my noble friend the Minister could at least commit to talk to colleagues in the relevant departments to get us around the table to look at a real strategy for prevention of violence and enforcement of the Laws we have. Many workers still feel unsafe going to work to earn a living and no worker should face that threat at work.

My Lords, we strongly support the creation of a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker. It sends an important signal to those working in shops at a time when shop theft has surged and the risks to staff have grown. But if this measure applies only to those who work in shops, we risk sending an unintended message to other front-line staff that they somehow count for less.

The Minister previously gave three reasons for rejecting the noble Baroness’s Amendment in Committee. First, he said that the case is especially strong for shop workers because they enforce age-restricted sales and are on the front line of theft. We agree that shop workers are at particular risk—that is why we support these clauses—but many other public-facing workers also enforce rules, refuse service and challenge bad behaviour. They too attract anger and sometimes violence.

Secondly, the Minister said that a narrow definition of retail worker is needed for legal clarity, while suggesting that some hospitality workers might be covered by the definition of retail premises in Clause 38. In practice, that causes new uncertainty. It is hard to justify protection for a worker in a café inside a supermarket but not for one in a café next door to a supermarket.

Thirdly, the Minister pointed to the 2022 Act, which makes it an aggravated offence to assault someone providing a public service or performing a public duty, and suggested that this makes the amendment unnecessary. But the fact that abuse of public-facing workers is continuing, despite the 2022 Act, shows that that measure alone has not stopped abuse and threats becoming routine for many on the front line. If we now create a stand-alone offence only for one group of public-facing workers, we risk weakening rather than reinforcing these existing protections. Safety at work goes to the heart of social cohesion, and of the basic conditions for economic growth. If we want people to keep filling these roles, we must do everything we reasonably can to protect them.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for moving Amendment 359. I know that she has been pursuing it with tenacity. This amendment and Amendment 361 relate to the Government’s proposal to create a specific, stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker at work. I want to be clear from the outset that it is already an offence to assault a retail worker, because it is an offence to assault any person, full stop. That is the law. I do not believe that criminal law should treat anyone differently based simply on whether they are a retail worker. I fully recognise that retail workers face an appalling level of abuse and violence in the course of their jobs, but to say that the creation of a new, specific criminal offence of assaulting a retail worker will stop assaults on retail workers is, frankly, for the birds.

What will stop these assaults, or at least reduce them, is the police stepping up enforcement, and the Government stopping the release of criminals and handing anyone convicted of these offences suspended sentences. However, the Government clearly believe that creating this new offence will reduce violence against retail workers. If we are to take their logic to its conclusion, why would we not extend the offence to cover all public-facing workers? Does the Minister believe that transport drivers, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Stowell and endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, are of lesser value than retail workers? If the Government believe that this new offence will work then why do they not believe it will work for other public-facing workers?

My noble friend’s amendment exposes the absurdity of the Government’s position. They argue that violence against retail workers is a significant problem that needs to be tackled, which is absolutely correct, but then propose a solution that they refuse to extend to other workers who also face significant levels of violence at work. There is simply no logic to the Government’s approach. Either they believe that creating a new offence for specific groups of people will reduce violence against them or they do not. They cannot argue both. I would prefer that we did not have any new offences that outlawed things that are already outlawed and that we did not legislate to criminalise actions towards specific groups of people but not others. That would be my preference, but if we are to do these things, then we must take them to their logical conclusion. For that reason, I support the amendments from my noble friend.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Amendment, and for the opportunity to discuss it with her and with the organisations she brought in for face-to-face discussions with us. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for his contribution and for our meeting.

I declare my membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which I joined 47 years ago and which sponsored me as a Member of Parliament. I put that on the record. I must also say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that I understand that he would prefer to have no offence. I understand that because when, as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons, I tabled amendments to put these types of offences down, the then Government rejected them. I therefore understand where he is coming from, because that is consistent with the position of previous Conservative Governments.

In this case, we have a Labour manifesto commitment endorsed by the electorate. My noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned USDAW. I pay tribute to that union, which has collected evidence and, through three general secretaries, including my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, campaigned strongly for an offence against retail workers. The Labour Party listened to that in Opposition and put in its manifesto—I cannot claim credit for this, because I was out of Parliament at the time—a commitment to legislate for that offence, which appears in the Bill before the House today.

I have heard the comments from the noble Lord, Hogan-Howe and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and others, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on the Liberal Democrat front bench, on why they think that the bespoke offence against assaulting a retail worker should be extended to all public-facing workers. Along with proposing a new broader offence of assault against public-facing workers, the noble Baroness has tabled an amendment that would place a duty on courts to make a criminal order in the event of a conviction.

I hate to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but I repeat the arguments that I put to her in Committee and elsewhere. Public-facing workers such as those mentioned by my noble friend, the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Harding, and others, are covered under existing legislation, such as the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which includes a range of violent offences, such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. Further, the provisions of Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, makes it a statutory aggravating factor of assault against any public-facing worker. That offence means that if someone, having been charged with the serious offence of assault and having gone through a trial, is deemed to have committed assault against public-facing workers, the court has the power to add aggravating factors to that sentence. That covers every type of worker that has been mentioned by noble Lords today. The aggravating factor applies in cases of assault where an offence is committed against those public service workers performing a public duty or providing a service to the public. That is an important factor.

Noble Lords have asked why there is a specific offence against retail workers that is additional to the aggravating offence. That is a reasonable question to ask. In clauses that have been mentioned there is provision for additional prison sentence capacity, criminal restriction orders and an unlimited fine for this stand-alone offence. Retail workers are still covered by Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, so why have we put that extra power in place?

The reason for this—and why I declared an interest—is that USDAW has, to my knowledge, for 17 or 18 years campaigned regularly for this in the Freedom From Fear Campaign. It has done so under the three general secretaries that my noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned, and it has done so for a purpose—one that the Government share. Retail workers are fundamentally on the front line of upholding the Laws passed by both Houses of Parliament on a range of matters. It is a retail worker who stops illegal sales of cigarettes, it is a retail worker who stops illegal sales of alcohol, it is a retail worker who stops an illegal sale of a knife, it is a retail worker who stops an illegal sale of a solvent, and it is a retail worker who protects the community by upholding all the laws on those issues that we have passed in this House and in the House of Commons. That is why USDAW campaigned for the specific offence, and it is why the Labour Party in government has been pleased to support the creation of that offence by putting it in the Bill.

That goes even further to the appalling shop theft situation. I do not call it shoplifting—it is shop theft. There has been a continued rise in shop theft over many years, and it is the retail worker who is on the front line saying, “Put that back”, calling the police and taking action in the shop. The Co-op, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and a whole range of retail organisations have campaigned for this, alongside USDAW, over many years. It has been thought through and there is an evidence base. It is a manifesto commitment, and we are trying to introduce that extra offence. I do not wish to see a train operative or members of customer services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, mentioned, attacked with a knife. This is covered by common assault legislation from 1861 and by the 2022 Act as an aggravating offence. But the Government have put forward a stand-alone offence for shop workers for the reasons I have outlined.

Does that potentially create an anomaly? Let us discuss that and reflect on that view. But the manifesto commitment is clear, and we are delivering on that manifesto commitment. This is an important issue, based on evidence and campaigning by a range of bodies—retail organisations and trade unions—and it has my support. Therefore, I cannot support the noble Baroness—I have told her that—or my noble friend.

That is not to say that the Government accept that attacks on those members of staff are a normal part of what they should face. We are committed to driving down assaults and to enforcing, with the courts, the legislation on the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked what the Government are doing to reduce the attacks in the first place. This Government are rebuilding the police force—13,000 neighbourhood police officers—and have put in place, with this Bill, changes in shop theft legislation. This Government are focusing on retail crime in hotspots and on making sure that we drive it down. We will ensure that the police forces have retail crime as a major priority.

In the last 14 years before July 2024, police numbers fell, neighbourhood policing fell and the focus on the high street fell. It was not a Labour Government but a Conservative Government who did that. They refused the legislation on assaults on shop workers that I proposed in the House of Commons, they refused to take action on shop theft on high streets and they refused to stand up for the workforce. With due respect, I will not take lessons today from the Conservative Front Bench.

May I check whether my assertion is accurate or whether I am wrong? Would someone enforcing an age limit in a betting office not be protected by the retail workers’ protection but someone enforcing an age restriction in an off-licence would be? It seems to me that the distinction is simply between providing a service and providing a good. If I am wrong in that, I withdraw my comment, but I am not sure that the Minister has said I am.

We have clearly defined in the Bill what we believe a retail worker is. I accept that there are areas of interpretation for the courts, such as, for example—we have discussed this with colleagues outside the House—whether a Post Office is covered by the retail worker provision. Somebody might walk into a post office to buy Christmas cards or birthday cards and go to the post office counter—is that a retail worker? Those are areas where there may be some interpretation, but we have identified this as tightly as we can. It is a straightforward Clause that defines a retail worker. I commend it, given that there has been a considerable amount of work by the Home Office in drafting the Amendment, after a considerable amount of work by retail organisations and trade unions to develop the campaign.

I go back to my point that all attacks on all staff are unacceptable. Other areas are covered, but the reasons I mentioned on the specific provision of upholding legislation are why we have put in a specific offence against retail workers. That is why I commend those clauses to the House. I ask the noble Baroness—although I understand that she cannot do this—at least not to push her amendment to a vote.

Before the Minister sits down, I think there was appetite among many of us to see the beginnings of a strategy for each sector that we know is facing rising violence. I know that that is not within the gift of the Minister, but a request to talk to Ministers and get people around the table in those sectors so that we can deal at a strategic level with the causes of violence, as well as big issues such as resources for enforcement, would go a long way to give comfort to people that this is the beginning of a conversation about how we deal with violence against working people.

As I said to the House, I do not support, encourage or condone any violence against anybody under any circumstances. The public-facing workers are covered by two pieces of legislation; we are adding a specific offence for retail workers, for the reasons I have outlined. I have met personally with a range of bodies that the noble Baroness has brought before us. I understand that my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill has met organisations and met and discussed issues with my noble friend Lord Hendy, who is here today, and will continue to do so. However, this campaign on the clauses in the Bill has been a long time in gestation—it has taken 15 and 16 years to get where we are today—and I want to get them over the line, so I cannot accept the amendments that the noble Baroness has introduced. I ask her to withdraw her Amendment but if she puts it to the vote, I shall have to ask my noble friends to join me in voting against it.

My Lords, the hour is late. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendments—indeed, I do not think that any noble Lord apart from the Minister has spoken against them. I just say to him that nothing in my amendments dilutes or diminishes what he has brought forward in Clauses 38 and 39. His manifesto commitment is still being met; all the work that he pays tribute to USDAW for doing over many years all stands. Nothing of what he is so proud to have brought forward in the Bill will be changed by us voting for my amendments tonight. My amendments would address the illogical way, as we have heard in the debate tonight, in which the Government are determined to tackle a problem that expands way beyond retail workers. I am afraid that I am not going to withdraw my Amendment—I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Ayes 129, Noes 132.

Amendment 359 disagreed.