Maximum Temperature for Indoor Workplaces

My Lords, we recognised in our manifesto and our Make Work Pay plan concerns about high workplace temperatures in certain sectors causing serious health and safety concerns. We are committed to modernising health and safety guidance with reference to extreme temperatures. The HSE has committed to consult on the workplace health, safety and welfare approved code of practice later this year. Meanwhile, employers must protect the health and safety of their workforce and assess and manage workplace risks, including those from extreme temperatures.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but let me outline the urgency. There were 1,311 heat-related deaths in 2024, 1,504 in 2025 and 2,700 in the last two months alone. Research shows that high workplace temperature damages health and is a safety hazard. Countries such as Spain and Belgium protect workers through laws specifying the maximum temperature for indoor workplaces, so what we need are enforceable laws, which I hope the Minister can provide us with, and not voluntary codes, which do not give anyone enforceable rights.

First, I would say that the figures that the noble Lord cites about excess deaths from heat are obviously very worrying. Not all of those, clearly, would be related to workplaces. It is not true to say that there is no law or no ability to take enforcement against employers who do not act appropriately on keeping their workers safe, including with respect to excessive heat. The fact that the HSE is developing new guidance does not mean that this is not something where employers nevertheless have a responsibility to act and would be held to account by the HSE for that action.

Why do the Government think that this country has such a low level of air conditioning systems installed, and will they look again at their rather negative guidance on their acquisition?

I suspect, without being an expert on this, that one reason is that for most of the year we do not need to use them. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable of government, certainly with respect to public buildings, to take a proportionate approach to the changes that should be made in those buildings—the adaptations which certainly will be needed in homes, schools, hospitals and elsewhere—and to provide sensible and proportionate advice, alongside considerable capital investment in order to enable that to happen.

My Lords, we are on our third heatwave this year, so I very much welcome this Question. I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer and I recognise that numerous consultations are under way. What consideration have the Government given to the deployment of wearable tech, particularly to protect workers who work outside, who are particularly vulnerable to heat exhaustion and heat stroke from our warming climate?

Obviously, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of their workforce rests directly with employers. The HSE provides important guidance about how to ensure that that happens. I do not believe it covers the point about wearable tech that the noble Earl made—I will take that back to the HSE—but it expects employers to think about a whole range of different ways in which workers can be protected, whether inside or, as he says, outside.

My Lords, currently it seems impossible to buy air cooling systems—there are a variety—for love nor money. Can my noble friend guarantee that any new rules on maximum temperatures will give plenty of time and notice for employers to introduce those adaptations to the workplace, and guarantee the workforce some relief from unbearable temperatures next summer?

I know that this is something that my noble friend has raised on numerous occasions, quite rightly. That is the reason why the Health and Safety Executive is and will be engaged in a consultation on improving guidance. Guidance, of course, already exists for employers on how they should be taking action with respect to excessive heat. It is important, on the wide range of different things that employers could do to support their workforce, that the additional guidance that the Health and Safety Executive produces is done in consultation with the representatives of both workers and employers, so that these are practical and proportionate ways in which we can achieve the objective that I think we all share, which is that people are able to go to work, be productive and be safe even when temperatures are excessive.

My Lords, under the boiler upgrade scheme, air-to-water heat pumps are eligible for a £7,500 discount. Air-to-air heat pumps, which can be used for cooling as well as heating, are eligible for only £2,500. Why the difference?

Having learned more than I thought I was going to know about workplaces and excessive heat, I am afraid that that was not one of the bits of revision: so, if it is okay, I will write to the noble Lord on that question.

My Lords, there is a huge increase in people now working from home. Will the Minister also look at guidance for local councils, in particular with the review of the National Planning Policy Framework, to make it easier for people to cool their homes, particularly given that in some council buildings, councils are making it very difficult to install outside fans and to drill into external walls.

I know that my colleagues in the MHCLG are concerned about this issue. They understand that, as climate risks intensify, integrating adaptation into home upgrade policy is essential to mitigate overheating and other climate-related impacts. The Warm Homes Plan sets out our approach to retrofitting and climate adaptation. Over the course of this Parliament, we intend to introduce the most appropriate and cost-effective passive cooling measures into our capital-funded schemes, focused on improving the homes particularly of low-income consumers and those living in social housing, and we will prioritise higher-impact, lower-cost and lower-regret measures to ensure best value for money. The Government are also exploring how to set stronger objectives for climate adaptation to improve preparedness for the impacts of climate change.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers. I declare an interest as chair of the Building Safety Regulator. I am fairly sure that the Minister is aware that, alongside active measures to cool homes, there is much that can be done in building design. We see that on the continent and in very hot environments. Is now the time to prioritise a long, hard look at Part O of the building regulations, so that we future-proof commercial and domestic premises to ensure some sort of longevity as we face what is by many objective measures a climate crisis?

After this question, I will take a long, hard look at Part O of the building safety regulations. My noble friend, who is enormously knowledgeable in this area, makes an important point. Not only do we need to take the adaptation measures that I mentioned in the previous answer and put in place investment in our public buildings to enable suitable adaptation and to recognise the impacts of climate change, but I am sure he is right that we also need to look at how our building regulations take into consideration the impacts of the sorts of heatwaves that we have had this year as well.

My Lords, as the Minister has said, the workplace regulations already require employers to make sure that workplace temperatures are reasonable, which is a pragmatic and flexible approach, given the different conditions and circumstances of different workplaces. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not impose further prescriptive regulations and that, if they do act, they will do so by helping employers address serious concerns, for example by making it less difficult and less expensive to install and run modern technologies for heating and cooling, such as we enjoy in this Chamber?

It is already the case that the Health and Safety Executive provides a wide range of options for how employers can fulfil their responsibility to ensure that the people whom they employ are able to work in reasonable conditions, even in heatwaves. I have already made it clear that the Government think that this approach, potentially looking at the thresholds of action that might be necessary as workplaces get to different levels of heat but nevertheless not mandating specific action related to a specific temperature, is the most appropriate way to go forward.