Lords Chamber

Wednesday 18th June 2025

(began 1 month ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: The safe return of abducted Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia and Belarus
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first My Lords, first Oral My Lords, first Oral Question.
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:50
15:50
15:52
15:53
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill – committee stage (day 10) (part one)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee upon the bill. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not Those in the contrary say, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In clause 91, amendment 271ZA,
15:53
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 271ZZA, 274 and 278. amendments 271ZZA, 274 and 278. Starting with amendment 271ZZA, Starting with amendment 271ZZA, clause 91 requires the Secretary of State to set out a plan for enforcing labour market legislation enforcing labour market legislation over a three-year period. However, as currently drafted, clause 91 as currently drafted, clause 91 lacks the flexibility necessary to lacks the flexibility necessary to reflect changes in government and political leadership. As the political leadership.

As the Minister will be aware, section 1 of this clause places a statutory duty this clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish on the Secretary of State to publish a labour market enforcement strategy before the beginning of each relevant three-year period. relevant three-year period. Subsection 6 then defines what these periods are. Beginning on the first periods are. Beginning on the first April, next after the section comes into force, and every successive into force, and every successive three years thereafter.

At first glance, that may seem entirely glance, that may seem entirely sensible. Let me explain why this creates a democratic and practical problem. Our amendment seeks to fix this. Suppose, for example, this bill passes this year, 2025. Under close to 91 -- under clause 91, subsection A, refer strategy would need to be published before 1 April 2026 and it would then run until March March 2029. Now, imagine a general election takes place in 2027.

I believe entirely plausible, perhaps even probable. That would mean that a new government taking office in 2027 would be bound by a strategy formulated and published by a previous administration, with potentially very difficult political priorities, until well into 2029. I would suggest to the government that this is neither democratic nor desirable. Labour market enforcement is not a neutral administrative matter. It involves clear policy choices about which sectors to prioritise, what level of inspection and enforcement to undertake, what approach to take with non-compliant employers, and how to engage with trade unions, businesses, regulators and workers.

These are not technocratic decisions. These are matters of political judgement. They ought to reflect the democratic mandate of the day. Our amendment is therefore straightforward. It would insert into clause 91 a provision that the relevant three-year period should reset three months after any general election. This would provide any incoming government a short period in which to consult the advisory board and prepare a revised strategy only if it wishes to do so. It doesn't force a change of strategy.

It simply enables one at a more appropriate and -- in a more appropriate and timely manner. Turning to amendment 274 and 278. Turning to amendment 274 and 278. These amendments seek to inject evidence, accountability and proportionality into the government was my proposal to establish single market labour enforcement body under the legislation. These are not abstract or procedural concerns. They speak directly to the credibility of this legislation. And the consequences it will have four workers, businesses and the rule of law in the labour market.

We are therefore being asked to approve a significant structural reform. The consolidation of multiple specialist enforcement agencies into a single, central body. Without a clear estimate of how much it's all going to cost or a rigorous analysis of whether it will improve enforcement outcomes. The idea that such sweeping institutional change could proceed without a public detail cost benefit analysis should give us all pause for thought. The creation of a new enforcement authority is not merely a matter of administrative reorganisation.

It involves physical premises, staff transfers, IT infrastructure, legal realignment of the enforcement powers, datasharing agreements, and the re-establishment of everything, from complaints mechanisms to enforcement protocols. Now, all of this will come at considerable financial and operational cost, yet no such cost has been published. Nor can it be debated. It is absent. This is particularly concerning given that we have seen several -- similar reforms in other domains, such as the dismantling of the UK Border Agency go badly awry.

Not for lack of ambition but lack of foresight and planning. And effective enforcement agency cannot simply be declared into being -- and effective. It has to be built carefully, deliberately and on the basis of hard evidence. That is why amendment 274 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a detailed cost assessment. We understand that the government was broader agenda includes a desire to reduce inefficiency and waste in the public sector. That is a principle all sides of this house would support.

We would not and I hope the Minister would not wish to see the creation of another bloated agency. Duplicating functions, duplicating budgets and wasting taxpayers money under the guise of reform. Without clear planning, the risk is precisely that. And new bureaucracy with vague lines of accountability, failing to deliver better outcomes for workers or businesses. It's not enough to assume that a single body will automatically deliver better will automatically deliver better Enforcement is not failing because of multiplicity, each of the current of multiplicity, each of the current bodies, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority's, the employment agencies standards Inspectorate, and HMRC's Minimum Wage Act enforcement teams, they serve a differentiated role in a highly complex market.

In some part of the labour market, agriculture and care work and logistics, a one-size-fits-all approach may not work. Moreover, there is the real risk that such a body could be driven by process rather than impact. We must not fall into the trap of building a body that spends more time chasing administrative infractions in compliance small businesses than confronting the deliberate concealed expectation of migrant workers, agency temps and casualised labourers. Over enforcement in the wrong places, and under enforcement and the right ones would be a costly failure.

This is a live risk. That is why a full independent review, assessing enforcement effectiveness, performance of existing bodies, and the regulatory ecosystem they operate in, is, in my view, indispensable. This matters particularly for small businesses which unlike multinationals, lack the legal resources and dedicated compliance teams to navigate sudden changes in enforcement structure or protocol. Poorly targeted legislation, however well- intentioned, and full hardest on these firms. We cannot afford to set up a system that inadvertently penalises the contentious, should penalise the contentious, but ends up penalising the conscientious whilst leaving the genuinely exploited on touch.

Finally, we must recognise that a New Labour market enforcement body will not operate in a vacuum, it will have to coordinate with the Health and Safety Executive with a curse, with local authorities, with employment to, and with various devolved institutions. If the new agency is established without proper integration planning, it risks creating confusion over jurisdiction, further the laser enforcement, undiminished cannibalism. All of these factors point to the same conclusion. Before Parliament approves such a substantial structural reform, we must understand exactly what we are doing, how much it will cost, what outcomes it will produce and what risks it entails, and the public deserve no less.

The labour market is too important and foundational furnace and dignity in this country for us to legislate lightly. To finish, I ask the government, what assurances can the government offer that smaller compliant businesses will not face disproportionate scrutiny whilst those engaged in serious abuse slip through the net. How will the government ensure the agency has the right balance of investigative power and sector specific knowledge? Rather than becoming a generic enforcement agency. I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 91, page 110, 912, at end insert " the three-year period resetting three three-year period resetting three
16:05
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

months after any general election. " I support this group of amendments in the name of my noble amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to clause 91, to exempt a new government for up to 3 years from the labour market enforcement surgery of its predecessors, for the reasons set out so ably by my noble friend Lord Hunt. I also support amendments to hundred 824 and 278 for a new clause after clause 140 to review the effectiveness of enforcement and compliance with relevant labour market requirements as in part one of the scheduled seven, before the new agency set up, and of course for the costing of and of course for the costing of such a new body before it is set up.

The enforcement mechanisms proposed by the bill involving a new Fair Work Agency, to bring together existing functions of enforcement into one body, is unknown territory. Today, to enforce a limited number of employment rights, official powers are used by four different agencies, as you know, Gangmasters and Labour abuse authority, GLA, the employment agencies standards, HMRC, and the Health and Safety Executive. Yet the proposed new Fair Work Agency models these and new responsibilities under the bill, into a single body.

One untried and untested, and whereas in general employers are quite familiar with some of the existing bodies, whether HMRC, the revenue, known familiarly by many, and HSC, Health and Safety Executive, which also provide advice as well as having enforcement functions. At the moment, we have the benefit of experienced bodies with whom employers are familiar and an ability by each body to the precise and knowledgeable about the subject on which it is an enforcement officer and have the, and we also have the advantage of different horses for different different horses for different courses.

The plan is to move to... With all the costs and that the position focus which the present bodies have. Because what is proposed is an untried, once I model. The enforcement of the laws differently framed with different aims, by say the Gangmasters body, will have a different focus to that of the revenue. Though some of the functions may overlap. And I therefore suggest the need for a costing in the interest of the taxpayer, of the new body is proposed, before it is set up, and the effectiveness of the outcomes of present arrangements for enforcement and compliance, and how they stack up.

And this should be done before any steps are taken to put in place a new body. For this reason I heartily support the amendments. heartily support the amendments. heartily support the amendments.
16:09
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak on the issue of the labour market enforcement strategy and to support amendment to hundred and 74 to which I have appended my name. And to build on the excellent remarks of my noble friend and the specific points raised by my noble friend bonus Lawler, for me, and I declare that I'm a member of the chartered and personal development and have been for over 20 years. -- Chartered is to develop in.

The CIPD estimates that just the people skills, HR support service, which they have mooted, working with ACAS, would cost about £30 million under the new regime obtaining when this bill becomes an act. And we already know that following on from the comments of my noble friend, that the keenness of cost of the existing bodies doing similar work, with an arduous work streams, is about £40 million. The reason I think amendment to 74 is important is because in this country, we have this strange anomaly which is unusual for most of the countries, is that we generally do not put in primary legislation the architecture of scrutiny and oversight on the face of the bill.

So for me, I want to know how this agency is going to be accountable in terms of the costs, who it employs, what its policies are such. The Minister will no doubt say, well, once we have a situation where it becomes an act, there will be what was the business select committee, or they might be the National Audit Office, or there the Public Accounts Committee. But we are being asked to sign a blank cheque for this without really knowing how precisely this agency is going to operate, and most fundamentally at what cost.

And we haven't seen the detailed impact assessment focused on the work of this body. And I do think on that basis, that the minister, if I can ask him specifically, how does he see the process of accountability working and is there going to be any work by his department and ministers more generally to work out what the costs are likely to be? Because I accept on face value that this government is committed to reducing the regulatory burden on particular small and medium-sized enterprises, and I'm sure the noble Lord will bend his ear on that having come from the background he came from as a champion of a small businesses from the Labour side.

Therefore I think it's not unreasonable for us to ask what the cost will be and how we will be able to hold to account this agency once it's established. this agency once it's established.
16:12
16:14
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
House from all sides who have sent the best wishes for speedy recovery and I signed his card today from the live democrat group with the sentiment, I will fully enjoy discussing the Employment Bill on your behalf to midnight. -- LibDem Parliament's overview before commencement. We are fairly neutral on Lord Sharpe's amendments. The broadly procedural, but I have some sympathy with Lord Young's three year review, quite sensible, and he also explains the clarity that those two amendments, brings out the bland and the obvious, and the lack of cost and the lack of how this thing is going to be set up and working reality.

And so I intend to ask the Minister direct questions as well as support Lord Fox's amendments. Regarding the implementation plan and further consultation. I wish to turn to Baroness Coffey has been talking about, we have debated the Fair Work Agency 's powers across various groups but I want to think clearly to amendment 274, and 278, place on record my regret is not place on record my regret is not It will be subject to review It will be subject to review and amendment 328 leads the commencement of that in that process.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a few points. Does the government intend to put forward a detailed implementation plan and if so, when? Will there be an opportunity to scrutinise that plan? With be a separate consultation on how the new powers will be exercising practice? These are important questions, not just for Parliament but for businesses and bodies that will need to work with that agency in a live environment. A strong enforcement body is undoubtedly needed needs to be underpinned by accountability, clarity and proper scrutiny.

Lord Fox's amendment seeks to create a framework. I commend them to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house. I thank Lord Sharpe of Epsom and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Fox in absentia for tabling Lord Fox in absentia for tabling these amendments. Before I go any these amendments. Before I go any further, I think we would all like to join Lord Goddard to wish the very best and speediest of delivery very best and speediest of delivery to Lord Fox. We hope to see him back in his place at the earliest in his place at the earliest opportunity. First come I will speak to amendment 271ZZA.

This is to amendment 271ZZA. This is to amendment 271ZZA. This is unnecessary as close 21 provides a unnecessary as close 21 provides a strategy for this. That means the new government is not logged in. Can act swiftly, decisively and in line act swiftly, decisively and in line with its mandate. If the party with its mandate. If the party opposite were to win again in the not too distant future, their hands would not be tied by these proposals. Of course, everyone benefits from clarity, consistency benefits from clarity, consistency and strategic continuity.

I would say that automatically scrapping a strategy risks creating the kind of
16:19
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

disruption we should be avoiding. But to reassure the noble Lord this bill is about strengthening our bill is about strengthening our ability to tackle non-compliance. ability to tackle non-compliance. This includes the worst cases of modern slavery. The intention of the modern slavery. The intention of the fair work agency is to mandate and catch the bad actors -- to mandate to catch the bad actors. Turning to to catch the bad actors. Turning to to catch the bad actors.

Turning to amendment 274, 277, 278 and 328. I want to be absolutely clear the government is committed to effective transparent enforcement of workers rights. The creation of her work rights. The creation of her work agency is a major step forward. These amendments are necessary. They duplicate recommendations over several years. There have been 33 several years. There have been 33 strategies and government reports about the effectiveness of labour about the effectiveness of labour market enforcement over the past 10 years. One could argue the subject years.

One could argue the subject has been reported to death. The director of market enforcement reduces an annual report. These documents are available in the library of the house. Additionally, are impact assessment for establishing a fair work agency sets out sets out the enforcement cost. I would also refer noble Lords to reviews published by previous administrations, including the Taylor Review which addressed the system and found it wanting. Finally, ongoing oversight of employment rights enforcement is provided for in clauses 91 and 92.

They require the Secretary of State to publish a three labour market enforcement strategy and annual reports which must be laid before Parliament and the Northern Ireland assembly and to address Jackson's question, it will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way, which could well be involving scrutiny by select committees in the other place. The bill doesn't specifically require that enforcement agency... I can confirm that the annual report will indeed include an assessment of the fair work agencies budget and how this has been spent.

Speaking on amendment 328, a fair work agency, establishing the fair work agency is not contingent on reporting. I would remind all noble Lords and indeed particularly the noble Baroness, this is not only a Labour Party manifesto commitment. This is policy of all the major parties at the general election to introduce an agency, a single enforcement body in some shape or form at the last election.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank him. Just because one side of the house or the because one side of the house or the other or indeed rotating doesn't mean it's the right policy. If we mean it's the right policy. If we have a chance to review some of the weaknesses in inherited policy, I think it is a very good chance. think it is a very good chance. Wouldn't the Minister agree it's a good chance to do it two the Taylor Review was focus particularly on the most vulnerable workers and certain categories.

It was not a very wide

**** Possible New Speaker ****

focus. We've had a fair amount of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We've had a fair amount of scrutiny of the wider proposal, rather than specifically the proposals around the establishment of the fair work agency. Over the past nine years, we had 33 different past nine years, we had 33 different strategies and reports, including the Taylor Report but not limited to just not report. This is not an area just not report. This is not an area that has not been considered and scrutinised to some degree. I would scrutinised to some degree.

I would also just say to the noble Lady. also just say to the noble Lady. Delivering the single enforcement body was the policy of successive Conservative -led and Conservative We feel it is important to establish the Fair Work Agency and to make sure we have strong enforcement of labour markets -- labour market relations. I therefore ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment 271ZZA. 271ZZA.
16:23
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I think this has been a significant debate. I believe it is the first time that I've heard from the Government frontbench and acceptance that the opposition will eventually take over government again. It's the first time I've heard it. He and I may disagree on when it will happen. Of course we disagree. I just happen to believe it's going to be at the next general election. That is why these amendments are so important. Can I just also say how much we miss Lord Fox.

I was very disturbed indeed to hear about his unfortunate accident, but now I'm very pleased to hear that he may shortly be with us. I hope that by speeding up the process to report stage in July that he will still be able to be with us because I think he has always brought a note of common sense, despite coming from the Liberal Democrat benches. Now I'm upsetting everyone! All I will say is that he has been a marvellous substitute, to Lord Stockport, in his pragmatic approach to this bill which has been enormously valuable.

But we do miss Lord Fox. Can I just thank my noble friend Baroness Lawler. She is quite right - we are moving into unknown territory, although the Minister might remind us that the Conservative government was committed to looking at stepping in this direction, we are still moving into unknown territory. As my noble friend Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, those CAPD estimates of cost a really worrying -- CIPD. Also his key question which I don't think the Minister properly addressed, namely the issue of accountability.

But here we are. Am surprised that the government has rejected amendment 271ZZA. I think it is a reasonable and pragmatic amendment. It is a democratic principle that a new administration should have the ability to review and if necessary revise a labour market enforcement strategy to reflect new economic realities and public priorities. Despite the amendment that he referred to, which I think is at the margin, the government has always insisted that a labour market enforcement strategy must run its full term without reset, regardless of elections or changes in government.

But why should government be found by strategic direction set by its predecessor? Shirley, it is neither logical nor democratic -- Surely. Especially in a labour market that is dynamic and constantly evolving. Economic constantly evolving. Economic landscapes can shift dramatically within short periods, whether due to international events, technological change or domestic challenges. Flexibility to adjust enforcement priorities accordingly is essential. It's not just a question of government -- governance, it is about ensuring that enforcement remains responsive to current labour conditions.

In fact, the government has already recognised the importance of periodic review and importance of periodic review and resetting of the strategy every three years, as set out in clause 91. If I'm not mistaken, that periodic nature is built into the framework to ensure that the strategy remains relevant and responsive. I do think the main feature of this debate has been the very cogent argument put forward by Lord Goddard of Stockport. I think he and my noble friend Baroness Coffey, their insights highlight the pressing need for a substantive, independent review of the proposed Fair Work Agency.

While the promise of increased efficiency and enforcement is welcome, we must remember that there are intentions. These are intentions and then there are results. We must understand how such efficiency will be achieved, at what cost and what other alternatives will be considered, as well as why they were rejected to well as why they were rejected to date. Details have not been published, which are crucial for proper scrutiny. Wheeler clarity on the expected cost of this new body. The standards by which compliance will be measured and the criteria that will guide enforcement decision.

Without that transparency, it is difficult to assess whether the creation of this body will represent genuine progress or simply add another layer of bureaucracy. This will impinge, as the noble Lord Lord Goddard stressed, on smaller businesses in particular. There remains much to discuss and questions to be answered about the Fair Work Agency. Unfortunately come I find myself convinced by the government's arguments against the amendments proposed by both myself and the noble Lord Lord Goddard of stock would.

Our proposals are not about obstruction but about ensuring proper oversight, accountability and flexibility in this important area of labour market governance. -- Lord of labour market governance. -- Lord Goddard of Stockport. I'm sure we will return to this at report stage but for now I beg leave to withdraw but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
16:30
16:31
None Portrait Amendment:271ZB Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-

content". The contents have it. Amendment 271ZB, Lord Sharpe of Amendment 271ZB, Lord Sharpe of Turning to amendment 271 ZD, this amendment ensures the powers being granted to enforcement officers in this part of this bill, are used proportionately and only in response to the most serious reaches of the labour market law. Without this amendment or something like it we risk handing enforcement officers weeping powers to enter business premises with little constraint. As currently drafted, clause 94, won a grant enforcement officers the authority to enter any purposes for "any enforcement purpose ".

That is an extraordinarily broad power. This amendment would limit such warrantless powers of entry to those paragraphs schedule seven that deal with the most serious forms of labour market abuse namely child labour offences, the failure to pay the Minimum Wage Act unlawful deductions from wages and exploitation through forced labour. These are the areas strong enforcement action is absolutely justified. But it is appropriate that the same powers, entering without warrant or consent, could be used to check whether someone is, could these powers be used to check someone forgot to keep a copy of an employment agency contract on file perhaps miscalculated payslip by a few pounds.

We must not lose site of the bigger picture. The vast majority of employers want to comply with the law. They invest time and money in doing so. But if we allow overly broad. Planners we risk creating an atmosphere of distrust, regulatory overreach and disproportionate intrusion, particularly in the smaller businesses who may not have the resources to constantly defend themselves against investigate re- overkill. The government says it wants better enforcement and so do we. But good enforcement is not the same as unchecked enforcement. same as unchecked enforcement.

Turning to amendment 271 ZB, A, as drafted clause 95 restrict the power to enter dwellings to those occasions where a warrant is issued by injustice. This is a well established and necessary safeguard reflecting the heightened privacy interests attached to a person's home. But there is a conspicuous And the safeguards applying to entering into non-dwelling premises such as business premises, officers or other places of work. Clause 94 grants. Officers wide powers to enter any premises or enforcement purposes without the same requirement for a warrant or judicial in a dwelling covered by clause 95.

This Means unlike the protections for residential premises, business premises can be entered and searched by enforcement officers without prior judicial approval. I submit that this is significant and unwarranted. Intrusion into a business and especially small and medium enterprises is a serious matter, entering powers can disrupt operations, damage reputations and create an atmosphere of suspicion. And that's all quite apart from the sinister nature of this. Families will businesses their premises are their livelihoods and the difference between home and business may be one of degree but the right to protection from arbitrary state intrusion should be similarly robust.

Judicial oversight assures these powers are used only when there is legitimate and evident spaces for entry and prevents abuse or overreach. The requirement for a magistrate to authorise a warrant is safeguard the products the Drew process, proportionality and the rule of law and is very well established. It requires the warrant. It balances legitimate interest with individual and business rights. Turning to amendment 271, ZD, as it stands the appeal process focuses primarily on the accuracy of the sums claimed all the penalties imposed.

It is essential that everything is calibrated but this overlooks critical elements and that is the manner in which enforcement powers are exercised. Enforcement officers hold significant authority when issuing notices including entering inspection and seizure powers. However these powers must be exercised wilfully, mortally and with respect to those affected. This allows tribunals to consider whether enforcement officers acting beyond the legal authority or use their powers excessively or unfairly. It empowers tribunal to cancel notices with misconduct orders reporting at enforcement is found and to avoid compensation as appropriate -- award.

This is not only a matter of rejecting businesses and individuals from overreach but also vital to maintain public confidence in the enforcement regime. When enforcement is perceived as fair, transparent and accountable, compliance will improve and disputes will produce. 273, LA, at this stage the bill does not define who. And officers are in any detail and discussion we started on Monday. Nor does it set any clear limits on the powers they may exercise when carrying out their functions. This lack of clarity is deeply concerning.

Especially given the serious nature of the enforcement powers being proposed which include entering inspection and seizure of documents and property. It is vital to establish unequivocally that enforcement officers who are not police officers and do not have the training or mandate of police must not be allowed to use physical for or authorise others to do so. The use of force is an extreme measure that can only be justified specific and related circumstances and generally only by trained law-enforcement personnel. The amendment simply ensures enforcement officers cannot resort to physical coercion which is not appropriate for officials tasked with the Rutledge reinforcement in with the Rutledge reinforcement in the market.

That's a matter of basic human rights, and dignity. It is also safeguard for businesses and individuals who may otherwise be subject to intimidation or physical harm. I have absolutely no doubt the opposition, the government frontbench has no interest in physical coercion being a part of these powers but in that case they should accept this amendment because if they don't the impression is clear and that would be that they do accept the physical coercion is acceptable and I don't believe that
16:38
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

is what they want so I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 94,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 94, page 112, 913, at end insert, under schedule seven, part one, paragraphs
16:38
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
schedule seven, part one, paragraphs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

11 to 12, 22 to 34, inclusive. I would like to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. Very briefly, as an employer, and I declare an interest in a very small business, interest in a very small business, but the idea that we have no warrant, no judicial oversight, and enforcement officer's intrusive visit to business to seize visit to business to seize documents, to take copies of documents, to check up, is both documents, to check up, is both intrusive of time, and out of the business, it's also...

Is an infringement of a business freedom to conduct the business to the best ability of those in the office, or in the business. These are very in the business. These are very intrusive proposals by both clauses intrusive proposals by both clauses in fact, and as my noble friend has pointed out, one of the things that pointed out, one of the things that is deeply worrying about them is that we don't know who the enforcement officers will be. We don't know exactly what their powers don't know exactly what their powers will be.

We have seen even with the best police force in the world, much of it and police, and local police of it and police, and local police forces, -- Metropolitan Police, and local police forces, over zealousness in pursuing certain types of crime, so I therefore think that with an untrained, unknown quantity, with such powers, we need very clear limitations and we need
16:40
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

to focus on the most serious crimes and those outlined in these amendments. So for those reasons I amendments. So for those reasons I do support both the amendments in do support both the amendments in My Lords, I thank her noble Lord My Lords, I thank her noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom four tabling amendments relating to the Fair Work Agency's powers. Clause 94 induces a Agency's powers. Clause 94 induces a single power to enter business purposes. But the noble Lord purposes.

But the noble Lord amendment 271, ZP would let this power to such an extent that effective enforcement would extremely difficult for the legislation which includes the National Minimum Wage. We are not about committing labour market about committing labour market enforcement into one single agency in order to diminish its effectiveness. This amendment would effectiveness. This amendment would effectively prohibit the site visits most Minimum Wage Act investigations reliant and an end to a system of state enforcement that has worked well for 25 years, the result will well for 25 years, the result will likely be an increase in claims and employment appeal, given the noble Lord's concern about employment tribunal capacity we would urge him to withdraw his amendment.

It brings me to amendment 271, said BA, while powers of entry are exercised on a consensual basis, in some situations it is critical officers are able to carry out the duties quickly. Particularly if they suspect given advance notice could give broken ploys the time to destroy or tamper will notify persons to rearrange a time to enter premises. A warrant is the noble Lord Lord Sharpe discussed could only be reached in justice if they are satisfied they are reasonable rounds for entry untraditional oversight shows that once granted only one appropriate to protect businesses from unwanted inspections will enable investigations.

The clause was added to the bill to put in place appropriate safeguards relating to the execution of warrants. Under part five of the bill, the approach will continue with additional safeguards, but extending this warrant further to include all business premises would be disproportionate and be a retrograde step in and enforcement terms. It would introduce additional powers and bureaucracy and create an unnecessary burden. Turning to amendment to 271, this is unnecessary. There are safeguards in the use of investigatory and enforcement powers.

These safeguards are designed to ensure that the use of enforcement powers is lawful and proportionate. In addition, enforcement officers are highly trained in carrying out investigations under a strict code of conduct. " Hundred and seven largely carries over the existing grounds from the notice of underpayment regime, contained in the national Minimum Wage Act 1998 which has been successful for over 25 years. In fact, in previous days of quitting this bill I would call debates around effectiveness of the debates around effectiveness of the minimum wage enforcement.

The process is well known and understood by businesses and individuals, exchanges risk adding confusion and uncertainty and leading to an additional complexity and litigation. Amendment 273, LA, would be a downgrade. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority can and must occasionally use force of under paste powers to rescue victims of modern slavery and tackle serious labour exploitation, indeed it through using those powers the last reporting year saw two modern slavery convictions and 30 slavery and trafficking risk and prevention orders.

To reassure Lord Sharpe, is currently as is the case currently, the use of paste powers will be strictly limited to a small number of officers are set out in their letters of appointment and subject to stringent IOPC oversight functions, subject to complaints and procedures. I'm sure the whole of the House will agree that we must tackle the scourge of modern slavery. This bill is designed to strengthen employment rights in a clear, coherent and enforce why. Unnecessary additions however well- meaning could compromise that aim.

On that basis I would ask noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom to withdraw the amendment.
16:44
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
I think he explained that the reasons against requiring a warrant to be issued included the fact that an employer might destroy documents. But in those circumstances, why couldn't the crusade that enforcement officer, if Yoshi can show the magistrate reasonable course to have those concerns of destroying document, then he can apply an ex parte basis for the search warrant, meaning there would not be the risk of destruction of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

documents in advance. The noble Lord raises an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord raises an interesting point. I fear without straying into legal territory, which straying into legal territory, which I'm not adequately briefed to do, I might write to him with further might write to him with further might write to him with further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I was about for that intervention. I was about to raise a similar point. It's been sometime since as a policeman I applied for one. I don't buy the applied for one. I don't buy the argument that that would see a lot argument that that would see a lot of documents destroyed or removed of documents destroyed or removed from premises. They would not know. I don't really buy that argument. I don't see why it should be different don't see why it should be different for enforcement officers and for the police.

The police are obviously investigating much more serious crimes in some cases. The use of crimes in some cases. The use of
16:46
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
foresight arguments, the point is that surely these are being extended. We are relying on future guidance and guidelines, comments or statements that will be written into their terms of employment. I don't think that is in a. I think the public deserves reassurance on the face of the bill or at the very least clarified from a dispatch box least clarified from a dispatch box statement. As we bring things to a close, the fundamental concern here that underpins these amendments is that the government has not yet provided a clear definition of who these enforcement officers will be or what precise powers they will hold, and what training or accountability measures will cover their conduct.

The absence of clarity is not a minor oversight. It's a significant gap that leaves businesses and individuals vulnerable to potential overreach and misuse of authority. Enforcement officers will be vested with extraordinary powers. Entry, inspection, seizure. We have no clear picture of the safeguard that will be put in place to prevent abuse. These amendments are not about obstructing enforcement or denying the government the tools it needs in order to tackle serious breaches of labour market law. On the contrary, we recognise the importance of robust enforcement but enforcement must be lawful, proportionate and accompanied by proper oversight and accountability.

Or it will risk losing public trust. We have sought to introduce reasonable limits on when and how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enforcement... With my honourable friend agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With my honourable friend agree there is Mike Wood my noble friend agree there is a danger of vexatious agree there is a danger of vexatious claims being made without evidence -- would my noble friend agree there -- would my noble friend agree there is a danger of vexatious claims being made without evidence?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being made without evidence? I absolutely agree which is why we are seeking more clarity on the face of the bill. Without the face of the bill. Without the transparency and without the accountability and without the clear accountability and without the clear definition of what the powers will be, which are vague, this is an arguable, then of course those arguable, then of course those concerns remain. It is disappointing the government has not fully recognised the risks which are inherent in the broad powers envisaged by this bill.

We would envisaged by this bill. We would argue that the government should
16:49
16:49
16:50
None Portrait Amendment:Clause 95 Stand Part. Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-

In addition to that, it's the stand part clause which I will come to shortly, and a more substantive amendment at the end, which is the amendment in respect of duty to collaborate or the duty to cooperate between the UK border agency and the new enforcement agency, the Fair Work Agency. So if I can begin by considering the stand part clause -- considering the stand part clause -- stand part amendment. My concern is - and just to remind others that this is a sensibly clause 95 with the powers available in respect to using a one month -- warrant to enter a dwelling.

In the face of it, it looks fairly innocuous. The reason why I don't think it should be on the face of the bill and therefore should not stand part is that I do think the wording of the clause is quite loose and opaque, and I have serious concerns about the use of permissive and wide- ranging powers. Particularly on subclause 3B, the idea that it is not practical to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the documents or equip and, and that the purpose of entry may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless enforcement officer can secure immediate entry to eight.

I do think that it is an area which I would like to interrogate the Minister on his interpretation of that. I think it is worthy of us considering it should not stand part of the bill. Although, of course, it was not part of the committee that... The name of which escapes me... It wasn't a particularly egregious example of the Henry VIII power but nevertheless, I think it can be misconstrued. Now, I will go on to consider the other items, the other amendments in my name.

If I look at 238, this would require the Secretary of State to have an evidential basis for believing a labour market offence is being or has been committed in order to has been committed in order to request an enemy undertaking -- an LME undertaking. I think this is important to move the amendment because what I'm attempting to do is to more clearly define the limits of the powers being conferred. In other words, it is explicit that there has to be a form evidential basis for exercising those powers.

We don't want a situation in which the Secretary of State may do as he wishes as long as he believed in offence was being committed. I'm not a lawyer but I would make reference to powers being conferred on the Minister based on subjective jurisdiction -- jurisdictional criteria. And if one looks, and I'm sure the noble minister will be sure the noble minister will be advised, historically it was found that Parliament should not take this approach.

I think it is reasonable and rational amendment. If we move and rational amendment. If we move on to 273B, this would mean the Secretary of State could only impose a prohibition restriction or requirement as in LME undertaking where they considered proportionate as well as just and reasonable. I think the test of proportionality think the test of proportionality is, of course, at the heart of adjudication and the justice system. It's the bread and butter of administrative decision-making, especially in respect to our human rights regime.

And it's good practice to have statute clearly in order to direct ministers to undertake the kind of judgements which the legal framework will impose on them anyway, and which otherwise will have to be communicated by the production of additional guidance. That is the basis of that amendment. Amendment 273 would reduce the maximum period for which an LME measure would have an effect from two years to one year. There is no obvious reason why any necessary measures cannot be imposed and changes expedited within 12 months.

It's better for one thing that a business falling foul of standards should be made to get their house in order quickly and to be able to compliant with any LME measure with own reasonable space of measure with own reasonable space of time. We are talking about 12 months. That is a reasonable reduction for two years. Is also better for the economy and public expenditure, and I would say service efficiency, to have a shorter timescale. In terms of 273, this would require the Secretary of State to bring the end of the LME measures to the attention of other persons interested in the matter.

This is clearly straightforward. If you are in a business, you will have multiple partners or directors or people with a significant interest in a business, and I think therefore in order to avoid bureaucratic mistakes, errors, I think it is fair

**** Possible New Speaker ****

practicable... I think amendment 273 is in a different group. different group.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different group. 273D. I'm grateful for the noble Lady the Minister giving me an opportunity to clarify where I am. opportunity to clarify where I am. It is 273D. Apologies if I've not been clear enough. This amendment would make a small clarified adjustment where the text currently says that the Secretary of State may says that the Secretary of State may take whatever steps he or she deems appropriate to bring attention to any other persons interested in the matter.

It would use the words all other persons. It's important for business today, good faith and indeed fairness on all those indeed fairness on all those affected are likely to be affected by a quite significant measure that by a quite significant measure that would be enacted that they are kept properly informed about it. Otherwise, we may seek messy episodes unfold where there is a episodes unfold where there is a misunderstanding or an extra -- or extra hidden penalties imposed in the form of costs of informing other people affected by the LME measure that it has for instance come to an that it has for instance come to an end.

I now move to amendment 273E, clause 119. This would require notice of LMEs to be given to our partners, rather than just any partner. This would not affect what is practically like running a business with multiple partners, perhaps in multiple locations of this would likely affect. I know they have a different regime in terms of this but, for example, it is not sensible, I would make the point, to only advise one partner of a significant infraction or issue arising from an LME.

If you want businesses to cooperate in order to ameliorate issues identified in the LME then you would really need some small modest cost to advise all the partners. You need also to cultivate Neath Grammar good faith in order -- cultivate good faith in order to make the changes necessary. Furthermore, is possible that courts will decide that notice has been given as matter of law in circumstances in which the one partner who was theoretically served has not actually seen it and is not subject to be aware of it.

Better than to require that all partners be given notice in order to ensure that businesses are genuinely aware of the ramifications and the LME decisions. I mindful of the time so 273F, 273F, when 273F, when balance 273F, when balance probabilities 273F, when balance probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. There is reason to fear the future government will use the provision of clause will use the provision of clause 1173, which empowers the Secretary of State to bring new measures, by regression, to create measures that go beyond regulation and become punitive.

In which case, the criminal proof standard will be appropriate. More generally, good faith between businesses and government, which AIDS compliance, would be better cultivated, if they are only required to comply with LME measures in cases where there have been clear violations. 273G would require courts seeking to order LME measures, to consider, that such would be proportionate as well as just and reasonable and 2738 would increase the period in which employers could respond to a request for an LME undertaking before the Secretary of State is empowered to seek an order, from 14 days to 28 days, this would, again, in compliance by allowing businesses time to think through how they can better achieve compliance with the regime as part of the broader strategy.

273I would mean the Secretary of State could not agree any longer negotiating period, and an ordinary one stability in 1213A, and 273H and I together, it would provide helpful certainty for business, to have a slightly longer fixed period, rather than a discretionary power. 273J, would mean the court in an LME order appeal could not impose incidental or consequence orders, unless they appear to do with a timely and proportionate manner, not just a just and reasonable manner, and finally, I think, 273N would remove Henry VIII power for the Secretary of State to amend section 9 of the bill, which lists the persons that the Secretary of State may disclose information to under 132.

I lack the time to develop any more information for noble Lords and the other amendments, but I will talk about the important amendment on duty to cooperate which I think is in this group. If it doesn't, I will sit down rapidly. 273 PB... It is. Would require a unified labour market enforcement body to cooperate. This is in the wider context of the government's policy to smash the gangs, et cetera. Also, I pray in aid the wide words -- The wise words of the secretary in the statement she spoke to in the other place, on 12 May, she actually said " We are overhauling the approach to labour market policy, so for the first time, we properly link the immigration system to skills and training here in the UK.

Where there are skills or labour shortages in the UK, immigration should not always be the answer to which employers turn. A long-term failure to tackle skills shortages, bringing in proper workforce planning, getting UK residents back into work, will improve pay, terms and conditions, here at home, it is by far economy and the immigration system." So, I think she has made my case rather well for me. It is important that there is proper collaboration and coordination between the new Fair Work Agency, a UK board of agency, in order to deliver the right results, both for businesses in terms of the people they employ, and to protect the borders, the security and safety, of the British people.

And therefore, I would invite the ministers to support what is an eminently

**** Possible New Speaker ****

practical amendment. I beg to move. My Lords, I rise to speak in this
17:05
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
group and supports several amendments tabled by my noble friend. And also, clause 13. The part is in my name as part of this group. It is worth starting with a couple of things. We are getting into quite an interesting bit, legally, what information can be used. I was somewhat struck, although a person can get into this, I found clause 120 interesting, basically no evidence being provided in the information taken can actually be used in a prosecution, quite surprisingly, apart from if it was related actually directly to perjury.

It makes me think how does this quite work. What I wanted to this quite work. What I wanted to probe why it is, in 134, YH MRC is singled out -- Why HMRC a single -- Is singled out, before that information can be disclosed, all these other different parties. HMRC information, doesn't apply to National Minimum Wage. But I will just remind the House, HMRC is a non-ministerial department. So, no minister can be involved directing HMRC in any way whatsoever.

That is why it surprise me why we feel this extra information is needed. I'd love to hear further from the Minister. In terms of the aspects and amendments in here, 273 PBI think it is really important amendment, and I appreciate later, in other groups, there are wide aspects of immigration, but recognising that this agency will be taken over the gang master authority, the extension of the Modern Slavery Act, it makes perfect sense, for this new body.

Not just in the case that it may disclose, but that it should be proactively working with the government agency, that is responsible for tackling Illegal Immigration and all the impacts that come as a consequence of that. So, I'd be supporting my noble friend, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, in that regard. Just perhaps a little cheeky one. I think in terms of 273N, my noble friend, I think on procedural purposes does not believe that schedule nine should be allowed. Because if it being Henry VIII.

However, it may give us the chance to... I think the Minister has already amended schedule nine in the passage of this bill, or at least debated it. I am quite struck that the Low Pay Commission is one of these bodies that this information being required through sections 113 and 114 will be provided to. Because I am not aware they are enforcement body. I thought they were, in effect, a research body that came up with recommendations about minimum wage and so on.

And I noticed, in other persons, for some reasons, Scottish medicines have been let out -- Left out of this equation, mainly to be added. It applies to Scotland as well, and Welsh ministers are getting some information as well. We will see a lot more coordination going on, so even local government, it might be something for ministers to share with their colleagues that, of course, winter start thinking about wider authorities, Greater London authority is accounted for, but nothing else.

Recognising, I think, the intention of this, is to allow a lot more coordinated efforts to try and stop abuse of employment law and others, including issues relating to Modern Slavery Act. -- Relating to modern slavery. I disagreed with my noble friend more than one solicitation and the need to amend schedule nine in terms of bodies. But I was seeking a probing bodies. But I was seeking a probing thing, particularly in relation to HMRC. HMRC.
17:09
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to move amendment 271 ZC, and also, 273BA, but I would first like to thank my noble friend is, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and Baroness Coffey, for their amendments in this group. I think my noble friend, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, started off by describing Oliver's amendments as a Conoco peer. $$TRANSMITNOA NITZAN: All of his amendments as a corner Copia. I was told it was a hall overflowing with fruit and corn, a figure better definition of his use of this phrase, is to describe it as an abundant supply of good things.

And it opened really the opportunity for the Minister to justify the unjustifiable. And we all look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness the Minister. But speaking to amendment 271 But speaking to amendment 271ZC, the cement and seeks to avoid governmental overreach by excluding holiday pay from notices of underpayment given existing legal framework provides adequate remedy for individuals seeking to enforce their rights in this matter. In rising to speak to amendment 273 BA, that seeks to ensure that labour market enforcement undertakings are requested only when there is a public interest in doing so.

I think, therefore, that this particular amendment provides an essential layer of protection. Protection against the risk of regulatory overreach. And against the misuse of powers that could otherwise affect individuals and businesses. Unfairly. Clause 117 of this bill gives the Secretary of State considerable discretion, to impose conditions on people or businesses suspected of labour market offences. The discretion already includes subjective tests of what is just and what is reasonable. But who defines what is reasonable? Who ensures that decisions are being made? Not just fairly, but in service of the broader public good.

By requiring measures, as this amendment does, to be in the public interest, we root enforcement action in its proper purpose, protecting workers, upholding lawful employment practices, and maintaining public confidence in our regulatory system. I believe this amendment strengthens the legitimacy of LME undertakings. It ensures that measures are not only lawful and proportionate, but meaningful, that they serve society as a whole, whether it is tackling exploitation, improving transparency, or deterring repeat offences. I believe the public interest must be front and centre.

Without this Safeguard, we risk opening the door to punitive reputational or performative measures that may be justified in form, but not in principle. This amendment gives parliament, and more importantly, the people affected, confidence that LME undertakings will be guided by public value. Not political expediency or administrative convenience. I urge the government to support this amendment. As I mentioned already, I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. His proposed changes to the wording of the legislation, particularly in relation to enforcement powers, are both thoughtful or necessary.

By raising the evidential threshold from a simple belief, to one requiring an evidential basis, by increasing the standard of proof, a cause, from the balance of probabilities, to be a reasonable doubt, these amendments introduce potential safeguards. They do not undermine the policy intention of this bill to tackle labour market offences effectively. Rather, they ensure that enforcement actions are grounded firmly grounded, in evidence. At the rights of employers and individuals are protected from potential overreach and misuse of power.

In short, my noble friend is' amendments help strike the critical balance between robust enforcement and fairness. Which I believe is vital for maintaining public confidence in the maintaining public confidence in the system. My Lords, amendment 273 PB, tabled by my noble friend, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is, I believe, an incredibly important amendment. We live in a world where migration patterns are increasingly complex. And the risks associated with Illegal Immigration, visa over state and exploitation of the labour market are growing.

At the same time, threats to our national security have become more sophisticated, requiring a coordinated and agile response across multiple agencies. Currently, enforcement efforts can be fragmented. With different bodies holding pieces of the puzzle, but lacking a clear statutory framework, compelling them to share intelligence, swiftly and effectively. This fragmentation risks allowing individuals who breach immigration laws or pose security risks, simply to slip through the cracks. This amendment addresses this gap by creating a clear and legal duty for a single labour market enforcement body to cooperate with key agencies, such as the National Crime Agency, the Security Service, HM Coastguard, and others.

It ensures that where there is reasonable suspicion of immigration, via commonality, vital information is shared properly, support and unified approach to In a climate where we face increasing pressure on our borders come arising illegal entries and complex criminal networks exploiting immigration loopholes, I believe my noble friend's amendment strengthens our ability to protect the integrity of the UK's borders, uphold the rule of law and keep our communities safe. I do hope the Noble Baronesses the Minister will accept these and the other amendments, and we look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to her response. My Lords, I thank you very much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank you very much noble Lords who have spoken. I thank noble Lords for tabling the amendments and for acknowledging their opposition to close 95. I
17:17
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
their opposition to close 95. I accept Jackson's point that some of his amendments are in the spirit of being probing amendments. I will attempt to respond to each in turn and forgive me if I repeat some point Lord Katz made in the previous debate which covered similar ground and I think we covered some of this ground as well in previous debates on a previous day. And I can also reassure the noble Lord Lord Hannan that I don't have a need to justify the unjustifiable in my response.

If I first speak to the First -- Fair Work Agency. I've listened to the noble Lord but investigatory powers are common to all regulators. The are common to all regulators. The are common to all regulators. The ... Employment rights enforcement agencies have had the right to enter dwellings since their inception. For example, HMRC's minimum wage inspectors can and do regularly visit business premises and use those dwellings to access -- gather evidence. Businesses operating from premises used as dwellings is nothing new.

For example, people often have flats above the public area where business documentation is kept. More and more businesses today operate from home. Current law makes no distinction for dwellings. This government believes in stronger safeguards for such powers. This is my close 95 introduces a new requirement for a warrant to enter dwellings. Together with additional safeguards in a close 128 and schedule eight, this strikes the right is between protecting the privacy and rights of individuals with allowing the Fair Work Agency to go about its job enforcing legislation.

I hope I have reassured noble Lords on this point. I hope that noble Lords can agree that close 9895 should stand as part of close 9895 should stand as part of the bill -- clause 95. I recognise the intent behind these amendments but there are already extensive safeguards around the use of investigatory powers in part five of the bill, including the new requirement for a warrant when entering a dwelling. Clause 128 is a sensible provision that sets out that any enforcement officer has the right to execute a warrant and as long as the enforcement officer is present, they can be accompanied by authorised person or persons if they deem it relevant to the investigation, for example an IT specialist.

Turning to noble Lord Sharpe's amendment, large amounts of workers are missing out on being paid statutory annual leave. Research estimates that 2 million people lose around £3 billion per people lose around £3 billion per year by not having holiday pay to which they are entitled. We recognise that this is proportionately affect the lowest paid workers. The Fair Work Agency would not be able to meaningfully support workers to recover holiday pay they are owned -- would if they can't issue notices -- owed.

I must respectfully resist this amendment. respectfully resist this amendment. I now turn to amendments to clauses 116-120 in the names of Lord Jackson, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, together with amendments to clause 126 and 136. These pertain to market enforcement undertaking order regime. Whilst these amendments touch on important aspects of the bill, they either duplicate existing provisions, introduce unnecessary complexity or risk undermining the careful balance, which has already been struck in the drafting. The labour market enforcement regime was introduced by the Conservative government.

Indeed, Jackson at that time in the other place, voted in favour of this regime consistently during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016. It's the regime that works and works well. It promotes the compliance first approach as employers are first encouraged to enter into voluntary undertakings to correct their behaviour. Only persistent or egregious offenders are issued with a compulsory order to stop. As of March 2024, there have been 140 labour market enforcement undertakings and just 14 labour market enforcement orders.

These market enforcement orders. These amendments seek to water down the regime and increase the legal test and administrative burdens for issues. By making the labour market enforcement regime more cumbersome and less effective, the fair work agency would have to resort more often to prosecution, which could be disproportionate and time-consuming for all concerned. I would say to the noble Lord that the effects of these amendments be to make enforcement more heavy-handed and less efficient, and less focused on helping businesses to comply.

This is not what businesses or workers want or need, and it's not what the fair workers agency is about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hear what she says about Shirley she would agree that if one Shirley she would agree that if one looks at amendment 126F -- surely. looks at amendment 126F -- surely. If you are taking forward an fraction case beyond reasonable doubt, you are more likely to succeed, and you are not taking succeed, and you are not taking forward cases... Would disagree with forward cases... Would disagree with all due respect. If you are bringing in proportionality beyond reasonable in proportionality beyond reasonable doubt, you will have sharper cases and tackle the most egregious and tackle the most egregious examples of infections of legislation, not waste a lot of time and consequently save the taxpayer money.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

money. I would say that the very evidence shows that the current evidence shows that the current wording is proportionate and the wording is proportionate and the fact is there haven't been a huge number of cases. Maybe we could argue about whether they should be more cases. The fact there haven't more cases. The fact there haven't been a huge number of cases is a reflection of that. What we don't want to do is set the barrier so high that we can actually take cases that are necessary to deliver the changes and the better worker protection we seek to achieve.

If I now turn to noble Lord's amendment 273N, I agree that effective sharing of information and pulling a village will be crucial to the success of the Fair Work agency. Safeguards are provided for. The power to update this list is however necessary to ensure the Fair Or Agency can respond to future changes in the wider labour market and the regulatory landscape. It means we can keep the list of bodies under review and remove bodies where we need to share information that no longer applies.

This is good data information governance. Noble Lady Baroness Coffey asked about the Low Baroness Coffey asked about the Low A Commission being listed. The Fair Work Agency will be able to share information with the bodies and schedule nine if it is for the purposes of function of the body. It does not need to be about the enforcement functions. If I respond... I should say also to Lord Jackson that the generated powers and regulatory reform committee has no concern with this power Robert delegated powers -- delegated delegated powers -- delegated powers.

If I turn to close -- clause 135. HMRC data is critical. In response to the noble Lady, I would say much of HMRC's data is confidential and it is therefore proven to acquire -- require an extra level of approval before it is shared further. Clause 134 restrict the sharing of confidential data without authority's age -- authorisation from HMRC commissioners. This will ensure that the agency operates in compliance with HMRC. It will ensure responsible data sharing between HMRC and the Fair Work Agency.

In relation to Lord Jackson's amendment, I can assure the noble amendment, I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State has power to share information with border authorities. Rather than enhancing enforcement, this amendment risks introducing unnecessary complexity and diverting attention away from the agency's or task. The amendment's intended effect can be achieved through the existing bill drafting. Turning to amendment 273R, the ability to require -- recover is a matter of fairness.

Restricting hours would force workers to adopt fixed fees. It could mean that a small businesses and paying as much as a larger organisation regardless the complexity of the case, and that is not for. This clause is an enabling power, regulations made under it will be subject to affirmative procedure for the parliament will be able to scrutinise and debate whether to adopt a fixed fee or variable fee regime at the point where the regime is proposed, and it's right that we are for that flexibility in design at this stage.

In conclusion, while I appreciate the intention behind these amendments, they either replicate what is already achieved by the bill's existing provision or risk unsettling a framework that is already being carefully constructed. I therefore ask Lord Sharpe to withdraw his amendments. -- His amendment. amendment.
17:29
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the noble Lady the Minister for a comprehensive canter through my amendments, which I defer to the poetic licence of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I will accept it is not a cornucopia. My cup overflow eth nevertheless. I appreciate the spirit with which the amendments were received and I think that Lord Hunt not for the first time put it much more succinctly time put it much more succinctly than I did, certainly in terms of proportionality and beyond reasonable doubt, they would have improved notwithstanding the excellent drafting by officials, would have approved the bill.

If I may just turn very briefly to 273PB, I don't think that was a satisfactory answer. It's a very important issue of defending the border integrity safety and security of the British people stop just to say the Minister has these powers anyway if he chooses to use them... The very point of this amendment is that it put on a statutory basis the imperative of using those powers and it names in particular the agencies. Just to take a laissez-faire approach and see " We may or may not use the but they are available to us".

I think the Minister needs to think more thoroughly if I may say so about how this bill fits in to our coherent encumbrance of approach to immigration that we take on board that the ministers are trying to engender in terms of border policy and border security. It is a vital area. Therefore, at report stage, I hope perhaps we have a slightly more comprehensive and helpful reply. With that slightly incongruous and negative caveat, I'm happy, of course, to accept the answers to the specific points from the noble Lady the Minister and on that basis, I'm happy to withdraw the amendment.

--
17:32
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

The question is a clause standard part of the bill, the question is clauses 96-99 standard part of one block. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". Amendment 271ZC, not moved? The question is clause 100 stand as part of this bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The content of it. The question is that clauses 101-106 stand as part of the bill on blog, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". The tense habit. Amendment 271 ZD, not moved? habit. Amendment 271 ZD, not moved? Not moved, I think. Z a day, that's right, exactly. Too many Zs. The question is clause 107 stand as part of this bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that clauses 108-110 stand as part of the bill on blog, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. Government amendment 270 1A, Baroness Jones, moved formally? The question is amendment 271, A, be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents of it. The cushion is clause 111 stand as part of this bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is clause 112 stand as part of this bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. Amendment 271, B, not moved? C, not moved? We now come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to group 4, amendment 271, D, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. My Lords, thank you, apologies
17:34
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, thank you, apologies for the confusion over the Zs. I for the confusion over the Zs. I rise to speak to 271D,, ZZB, ZZC, D, E, ZC, AA, AB, AC. Standing in my name. My Lords, there was a troubling message throughout this legislation and that is there is a fundamental belief that third parties, whether they be unions in part five, or in part five, the state, making decisions for individuals rather than individuals making decisions for themselves.

The challenge with third parties making the decisions is they pay no price when they are wrong, that is evidenced in this clause. So, in subsection 6 of clause 113, it states, " The Secretary of State is not liable to any worker for anything done or omitted to be done in or in connection with discharge or purported discharge of the Secretary of State's functions by virtue of this section." My Lords, that is an unacceptable section in this clause, hence my amendment 272 ZZE, because the reality is that workers whose claims are not taken up or taken up by the Secretary of State risk having their rights mishandled or ignored, and yet, under the clause as drafted, they would have no recourse, no remedy, and no ability to challenge that failure.

My Lords, we think that sets a dangerous precedent because we are granting power without responsibility. We would be creating the regime, in which decisions that affect individuals livelihoods and legal rights can be made from behind a veil of immunity. That is neither just nor consistent with the principles of good governance. So, we need to be clear, a private employer or trade union behave with this level of impunity, we will not accept it, why are we accepting from the state? Amendments to hundred and the state? Amendments to hundred and 71 and has the, -- Z, ZD, ZC, again, we start with fundamental printable, underlying all of these.

And that is consent. Because clause 113 currently allows the Secretary of State to initiate legal action in a workers name, without requiring that workers consent. My Lords, that's deeply problematic for the legal deeply problematic for the legal proceedings, particular employment proceedings can be deeply personal, reputation is sensitive, and complicated. To bring such proceedings without the individual's explicit and informed consent is a serious encroachment of personal autonomy. That is the purpose of my amendment, to line 31 page 124, to insert a requirement for work must provide written consent before the Secretary of State may act on their behalf.

That is not a mere administrative formality, my Lords, that's the cornerstone of the individual's control over their own legal affairs. What if consent was not initially required and given, but circumstances changed? That is addressed to my next amendment, line 33 on the same page, which establishes a clear opt out establishes a clear opt out mechanism. It ensures the worker is given notice before proceedings begin, and afforded 28 days to object. If they do, the case does not proceed. Surely, this strikes a balance between the state's interest between pursuing enforcement and the work's right to decide how their own cases handled.

My Lords, legal action is not always welcome, even when it is justified. The consequences of litigation, and especially in employment, can be damaging, personally and professionally, workers may prefer a resolution. But opt out are not enough on their own, even with consent, the state is bound by duty to ask act in the best interests. That is why I requiring the Secretary of State should be regarded to the objectives, the potential impact on the current future employment, and the proportionality of taking legal action in the specific context.

That is a safeguard to prevent well- meaning intervention, from becoming harmful or heavy-handed, then there's the matter of control. A worker may initially consent to the Secretary of State taking the lead but later wish to take back control of the proceedings, perhaps because they have secure private representation or circumstances have changed. My amendment at line 8, page 125, addresses this. It ensures the workers have maintained the right to reclaim their case and the Secretary of State must accommodate that request. It affirms ultimate control remains with the individual and not with the state.

Finally, my amendment at line 19, at page 125, introduces a fundamental principle, the state should not intervene unless there is absolutely no viable route to justice. If the worker has representation, or access to advice or union support, that route should be exhausted first. Legal action by the Secretary of State should be a last resort, not a simples. -- Not a first impulse. These amendments are not intended to frustrate enforcement, far from it, they are designed to ensure enforcement is fair, consensual, and genuinely in the interest of the person whose rights are at stake.

Workers are not passive subjects of policy, they are individuals with agency, judgement, and a right to decide how they wish to pursue justice. We must ensure this bill does not cross the line from protection into paternalism. My Lords, turning to amendments 272 AA, and AC, amendment AA Sibley calls foreign annual report, nothing excessive, but just a basic record of how often these have been used. -- Simply calls for an annual report. And any costs or awards recovered. This is a commonsense transparency measure.

If the state is litigating on behalf of private individuals, we should at the very best, or very least I should say, keep track of how that power is being exercised and to what effect. Amendment 272 AB is more pressing, this would create a sunset clause, power, causing it to expire at the end of the next parliament, unless actively renewed, it also requires an independent review to assess whether this power has deliver real value for workers, for justice, for public money. Because the truth is, we simply do not know if this clause was necessary.

We don't know if workers want the state litigating on their behalf, we don't know what the outcomes justify the cost, and we do not know if this is the most effective way to improve enforcement. If this power is to remain, Parliament should be given clear evidence it works and works better than the alternatives. Finally, my Lords, amendment 272, Z, B, this reduces a simple but important safeguard, attest before the Secretary of State can bring proceedings on workers behalf, without us, we risk allowing the state to pursue claims that may be frivolous, politically motivated, or unnecessary.

Potentially at public expense and also to the detriment of both workers and employers. Litigation should not be used to make a point, it should be used to deliver justice where it should truly matter. And this issue as powers are exercised responsibly and proportionally, and only when there is a clear public benefit, and I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Amendment proposed, in clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, in clause 113, page 124, line 31, at end, insert 'and the worker has provided written consent to the Secretary of State to bring proceedings on their State to bring proceedings on their behalf."

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behalf." I rise to also oppose that clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to also oppose that clause 113 stand as part of the bill, and I embrace this in second reading and appreciate the discussions that have
17:41
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
happened with officials and the Minister since. But I genuinely believe these are novel powers. I appreciate we are not just going to agree, perhaps today, one how far the 2006 Equality Act occurs, but to table questions to the Minister, they were passed to the EHRC, and they said since they received those powers, and I think they were commenced in 2007, no powers have been used to initiate legal proceedings that were not a judicial review or as an intervenor. They gave me the distinct impression that they did not necessarily believe that they should be initiating legal proceedings in this regard.

They do have their own policy and that of the consultation, but it does beg the question, given some of the other consultations the government has initiated. It's about whether it is going to be seeking in the future to take over any such duties or powers that the EHRC has in a variety of legal proceedings. Just because EHRC is not using powers the government thinks they have, but as I say, I think that is still a matter of debate.

I am building on the amendments that have been tabled by my noble friends on the front bench. There is this old situation, I appreciate we have discussed elements of clause 113 before, indeed, the other day we debated, my noble friends, Baroness Noakes' sensible amendment that this should be in the public interest. It would be helpful to understand from the ministers what they see will happen as a consequence of this. Where are we getting to? What is going on? I am leaving some part of this discussion on clause 114, deliberately the group from this from the money side, but it would be also to get into the understanding that, for the purpose of this section, is not just about people who are working, it's about people who haven't actually got a job with the person they are seeking to take the court, we have had a debate some time ago about how that could be, and got into a debate of potential privileges they might be, but nevertheless, this does seem quite extraordinary shift in the capability of the government.

First, to initiate proceedings anyway, and to do that when the work involved has, is not intending to do so themselves. Which is why I appreciate the legal wording really restricts any inclusion of the worker at a future date. That is specifically ruled out in various parts of the clause, except for subsection 5, which actually allows the work to be brought in at appeal stage. But I am concerned, more generally, about this approach. Of a new agency. In terms of one of the aspects of getting into the other element that really does concern me is subsection 6, that, in essence, the Secretary of State is not liable to the worker for anything done, or not admitted to be done.

That is expected to cover, I think we may have briefly had an exchange on this, that if the worker is saying he didn't go after this bit or that bit, it is kind of tough luck a bit later. But also, it's not clear to me, as it stands, if the worker is unhappy with the action taken, whether or not there is almost double jeopardy, or as double jeopardy allowed, will the worker be allowed to initiate separate standings or claims against the employer, if he feels the Secretary of State or enforcement officers So overall I think this is...

I would say it's an unnecessary innovation. I'm concerned and would be grateful for some broader examples on how this could be used

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the future. I write to support the amendments in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. In this group. Sharpe of Epsom. In this group. Looking at clause 113 of this bill, and put in mind of the exhortation pre-exploration exhortation of pre-exploration exhortation of Colonel Kurtz, the horror, the horror, and as an employment lawyer,
17:46
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
horror, and as an employment lawyer, looking at the section, this proposed section of the bill, it is a complete Horlicks. It's truly bizarre. Why is this power required, I ask the noble Lady the minister? Who should decide whether the Secretary of State should intervene in a persons right to bring proceedings or not? Why should that choice be taken away from them? And if the Secretary of State decides to bring proceedings, how would they compel the person who didn't want to bring proceedings to give evidence in their own claim that they are not bringing? And why did the judge decide that that claim should be allowed to succeed in the absence of evidence from the person whose claim it is? And then there is the question as to why the taxpayers of this country should bring proceedings in the name of somebody who doesn't want to bring them.

Possibly against a public sector employer and then has to pay to defend those proceedings to make an award of damages to a person who doesn't want to claim damages. All of this is absolutely beyond belief. Furthermore, I noticed that it's a discretion, the secretary of state may in the place of the worker bring proceedings about a matter of employment tribunal under an enactment which appears to relate any enactment in the employment canon and there is no explanation as to the test the sectors they will be applying and making that discretion.

That exercise of discretion will plainly be subject to judicial review, and if receptive state chooses not to exercise their power no doubt there will be satellite litigation brought by the union suspect in the High Court as to why this active state has not chosen to bring a claim on behalf of somebody they think should have had their claim brought by the Secretary of State. And applying the usual tests, it would be said that it was irrational not to bring the claim that it was in breach of some legitimate expectation that they claim would be brought.

And it seems to me that the whole delight now lying before the House of there being mitigation about whether there is litigation on behalf of someone who doesn't want to litigate. This is simply an absurd and inverse world of mirrors that frankly Lewis Carroll in through the looking glass wouldn't have believed was possible. And the lunacy of it is noted in subclause five of clause 113 whereby a worker can appeal against the outcome in a claim where he didn't even want to bring a claim.

I mean this is so badly thought out, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should clearly be withdrawn. And like to follow my Noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And like to follow my Noble Friend by supporting the amendments Friend by supporting the amendments by my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe, and
17:49
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
voicing very strong opposition to clause 113. I couldn't believe it when I read this clause. I can believe that 1/3 party, the Secretary of State could bring proceedings on my behalf to a tribunal if I didn't want proceedings brought. Nor did I think subsection 6 was worthy of the new government bill. And one could go through the whole of this clause and find something very wrong with it on many many grounds. There are many reasons why a worker may not want to proceed with a claim.

He may not wish to bring proceedings because of the hassle involved, the delay, the stress to himself and his family, or herself and her family, awaiting the tribunal who can never hear a claim quickly. The potential impact on his reputation or her reputation. A desire, a perfectly natural desire by an employee to settle things amicably with their employer. There are many many reasons. These are individual reasons. There family reasons, personal reasons, professional reasons. What right have we got in this House to give the Secretary of State powers to override that basic individual liberty in order to bring a case that someone might not want brought.

One can only wonder why such a clause is there that this active state can bring proceedings, presumably against the well against a workers inclination. We can only assume that this may be due to workplace political pressures. Exercised by others in the workplace, perhaps by the union members in the workplaces who want these cases brought as test cases and want the taxpayers to pay. Or by others who have the ear of government. This is a very sexual appeal in the interests of one vested interest group.

I've said it before and during the proceedings, but it isn't the government of this country in a parliamentary democracy to section eyes the law in favour of one interest group or another. And this measure is a particularly... Clause 13 is particularly dangerous and I support my Noble Friend's amendments for all of clause 113, and I hope the government will not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proceed with it. I just want to rise to support the comments that have been made
17:52
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
the comments that have been made particularly by the Noble Lord Lord Murray. This is an extraordinary clause. I've never seen anything like it. I'm not aware of anything on the statute book like it. And my practical question to the noble Lady the Minister is what this do if an employee is strongly against the Secretary of State taking it upon him or herself to go to court on their behalf, and the work is against that? What will that do to the relationship as well between the worker and the employer? It could absolutely devastate that relationship.

Because the employable greatly resent the fact that the Secretary of State has taken proceedings on behalf of the worker, even if the worker has said they don't want those proceedings brought. This is not good for industrial relations at all. And I really do urge the government to rethink this because the practical implications of it, how it will work in practice if the work is against it, will they be called as a witness if necessary the Secretary of State? Will they then be a hostile witness? It's all a complete and utter mess I'm afraid.

So there we are. I wasn't intending to speak on this but I do think this is an extraordinary clause, and I urge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ministers to drop it completely. I rise to speak to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to this amendment, and I was happy to sign it with my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey. I'm thinking of the words of Coffey. I'm thinking of the words of Cho and lie I think who considering the French Revolution set what did the French Revolution set what did they mean by that? And I look at this clause and I'm thinking what
17:54
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
this clause and I'm thinking what they mean by this? Maybe the Minister at the end of his process will tell us, will open the trinket box and letters into the secret of this bizarre perverse amendment, clause in the bill, but I really can't see the point of it is. Now I'm mindful of the fact we are surrounded by very accomplished lawyers, so I won't get too much into law, but lawyers and others will be aware that Magna Carta, 12.15, I know the Noble Lord cats likes a history lesson occasionally at committee.

And it was about, it came from the arbitrary power of the state, and I would say it is an arbitrary power of the state, but inserting itself into civil litigation without any real methodological basis, any timeline, any tests as my Noble Friend Lord Murray so rightly said being met. And I do think that's very real. And perhaps the noble Lady or the noble gentleman the Minister will enlighten us as to what the rationale and thinking of that is because it is novel.

It is completely perverse and unheard-of to be quite honest. Because what it will do is engender a disputations regime, more litigation, and more dispute in the workplace, and it will have a deleterious effect on business and commerce and profitability and how businesses run. So would like to know what tests the Minister will use, how likely these powers are to be used, and at what cost, and if there is any impact assessment or opportunity cost as to the use of these powers? The two final questions I would ask is in subsection two, why are agricultural workers left out of the process? It may be that this specific sectoral reason for that, but I think that Sir reasonable question to ask.

Why are they not swept up in these powers? And why are their rights not circumscribed to not get involved in similar litigation in respect of employment? And the final one, the most bonkers part of a truly epically bonkers clause is subsection 7. It's so crazy, it could have been written by the Liberal Democrats. But it would be unkind to make such an observation. But if one looks at subsection 7, you don't even... And my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey has only made this point, you don't even have to be a worker to have the Secretary of State imposing themselves into your potential litigation on a matter.

You have to be someone seeking employment as a worker. So presumably anyone who is of working age can be affected by this particular clause. And of course it also says, to find more widely to win individual it was the work of the purposes of the implant rights act 1986. I really don't understand the rationale and the logic of this clause. I think the noble Lady the Minister is clearly aware of the great disquiet that this clause gives rise to, and I hope she answers the specific points made, not least by the noble Lord Carter of Haslemere who it takes something for a Noble Lord of his experience in the law to say this is the most perverse and the strangest clause he has seen in a piece of primary legislation.

And on that basis, I would hope the Minister would respond to that and answer those specific points that my Noble Lords and the noble Lord Carter of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Haslemere have raised. I rise to support my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Hunt of Wirral and some of the amendments in this group. And also my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough in their opposition to clause 113, which I must describe much as the noble Lord Carter of Haslemere is quite extraordinary. It's extraordinary because it grants the Secretary of State exceptional powers. Namely the ability to powers. Namely the ability to initiate proceedings before an employment tribunal on behalf of a worker without that worker's consent worker without that worker's consent or even their knowledge.

How can this be right? If a worker has this be right? If a worker has chosen not to pursue a claim, whatever their reasons, how can the state reasonably step in and proceed state reasonably step in and proceed in their name? I'm no lawyer like my Noble Friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, but I think this Blidworth, but I think this demonstrates the need for amendment 271. D. Consent is a fundamental principle, in so many aspects of law principle, in so many aspects of law and life.

Yet it appears to be disregarded. Amendment 272.ZZA at
18:00
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
disregarded. Amendment 272.ZZA at the very least seeks to restore some balance by ensuring that worker in question is given the opportunity to consent or decline. If consent is not given, the matter should go no further. All bets should be off. I find it puzzling that those on the benches opposite consider it appropriate to have the ability to disclose personal data, whether legally privileged or not, about the written consent and without the written consent of the individual concerned. It's not something permitted in other circumstances particularly.

It's not fair. And we We must ask who truly benefits from the proceedings, is the Secretary of State actually acting in the worker's best interests? Or is there another purpose behind-the-scenes may be making a political point? I would hope the former but we live in predictable times. That is why amendments do hundred and 72 ZZC, is right to pursue the action, that it must be clearly in the best interest of the worker. Amendment 272 AC, has a practical but important concern, that the Secretary of State will not personally appear in the tribunal and will, in reality, delegate this power.

In that case, the worker should consent to the specific enforcement officer acting on the Secretary of State's behalf. An officer must be suitably qualified and confident in employment tribunal matters, I think it was already discussed earlier today. Again, this is only shortly reasonable and fair. If the Secretary of State is to exercise these parts, then transparency is essential. Amendment 272 AA seeks to ensure the public is informed about how these powers are used. The claims board, outcomes achieved, and then conversational costs recovered.

I might add that the cost of the states pursuing the claims is also highly relevant and deserves extreme scrutiny. Milos, I have not -- My Lords I have not yet touched upon the crucial burden of, in terms of time and expense, any company would face when subjected to employment tribunal proceedings, and not brought by the worker him or herself. While larger companies, such as the one I work for, may be better equipped to absorb such pressures, the impact on small and medium-sized, and I would say, particularly micro-enterprises, would be significant.

The strain on management in particular should not be underestimated. These cases divert valuable time and attention away from the day-to-day offerings potentially affecting performance and ultimately hindering growth. We hear enough about growth these days. We must not ignore the broader context as has been noted throughout the committee stage, the employment tribunal is already under considerable strain added further cases, particularly where the worker themselves has chosen not to act. Delaying injustice for those with legitimate pressing claims, they wish to pursue in their own name.

I must therefore question whether this extraordinary clause, clause 113, is extraordinary clause, clause 113, is necessary at all and whether its costs and consequences serve the public good, I would urge the government to withdraw and at best,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seriously reconsider. My Lords, I am responding to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am responding to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, sorry, I was just going to begin by saying what a pleasure it was to be chaired what a pleasure it was to be chaired by the nobility, who I understand is celebrating 55 years of public celebrating 55 years of public service today, congratulations. Now back to the rather not so inspiring
18:04
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
-
back to the rather not so inspiring business. My Lords, I am responding to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling amendments relating to civil, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and noble Lady, Baroness Coffey, can I say to noble Lords that the government is committed to ensuring a fair playing field for all employees and businesses. This includes enabling the Fair Work Agency to challenge breaches of employment rights, and labour abuse. Where individuals may not be able to pursue this for themselves, or where these cases are not suitable for other enforcement roots.

I am sorry to say some noble Or hear the circumstances in which this power might be necessary, but as we rehearse in a previous group of amendments, most vulnerable workers, especially migrant workers, are reluctant or unable to bring their case to the tribunal to enforce their employment rights. Rogue employers exploit this, break complement law, and get away with it. That is unfair for the majority of businesses who do right by their staff. It is unfair for the vulnerable workers involved in being denied their rights, and it's unfair for British workers who are denied work opportunities, due to illegal practices undercutting them.

That is why in the Plan to Make Work Pay, a manifesto commitment, we set out that the Fair Work Agency will have the powers to bring civil to uphold employment rights. This is why the Secretary of State will have the power to bring proceedings in place of a worker. It will mean all employers are held to the same standards. And I would say to the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that these provisions on civil proceedings are modelled on the Equality Act 2006, which allows the Equality and Human Rights Commission to institute legal proceedings connected to the committee's functions.

This includes breaches of the proceedings on human rights, and a party with proceedings relating to the Equality Act 2010. Can I finish this point perhaps? I might have answered your question. The employment human rights commission does not need consent, for they have issued proceedings in their own name before someone acting as an intervenor, the HCR has also previously received court approval to take over conduct of an appeal, on behalf of the appellant, when the appellant decides to withdraw from the legal proceedings.

This was done in the consent of the Supreme Court. In the case of MS Pakistan, versus Secretary of State, for the home department. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful to the noble Lady, the minister, for reaching the end of that paragraph. The point end of that paragraph. The point that I think she agrees with is that we however the EHRC to intervene we however the EHRC to intervene proceedings is not a power to take over proceedings, and indeed to institute proceedings, if people institute proceedings, if people don't want to bring proceedings, but it is a power to intervene and the it is a power to intervene and the power to carry on proceedings in the event that simply wants to withdraw, that is not based on any statutory provisions.

This is still extremely provisions. This is still extremely novel. And I'm sure the noble Lady will agree there is no statutory precedent for the kind of power she precedent for the kind of power she wants to take in section 113.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wants to take in section 113. Well, as the noble Lord has more legal expertise than me, I am happy legal expertise than me, I am happy to write to him on that point, it is an important point we need to clarify. But I would say, of course clarify. But I would say, of course these are relatively new powers were taken aboard, and we're taken them for relatively good reasons. Sorry noble Lords opposite you not see the noble Lords opposite you not see the case for, because certainly an awful lot of workers are being exploited lot of workers are being exploited out there and at the moment, they don't have the power to speak for themselves in a way that many others who are better informed can do.

If I go on to look at the individual amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, while I respect the noble Lord's intention behind some of these amendments, the state these amendments are necessary. Some of these amendments are already provided for, even within the existing drafting of the existing clauses, or in other closes of the bill. Regarding amendments -- 270 1D, ZZA, ZZD, as I mentioned on Monday, normal practice would be for the Secretary of State to bring proceedings with a workers consent and involvement.

However, in the worst cases of serious exploitation and intimidation, workers may fear the repercussions they may face their employer, should they be to know nice, should I take it forward without consent, it would be harder for employers to contribute blame for individual employees. Therefore, limiting these powers and the way the amendment seeks to do, can prevent the state from pursuing serious breaches and some of the most egregious cases. Amendment 272 ZZB is an unnecessary amendment, legally privileged material and confidential information is already protected under the Data Protection Act, as well as under usual legal rules and principles which apply to proceedings.

One amendment to hunt and 72 ZZ say, normal law principles already take account of all considerations, reference in the cement. Including the best interest of a worker. This is therefore another unnecessary amendment. Amendment 272 ZZE is an unnecessary amendment. Clause 113, six, does not provide a blanket exclusion from all liability, and itself evidence, that the Secretary of State would be held accountable if they undertook actions that were unlawful. This is a basic principle of the rule of law.

Regarding amendment 272 ZC, it is clearly in the interest of enforcement authorities and all parties that the most effective and proportionate means of enforcement is chosen. The bill already provides the civil cannot be initiated where a note of underpayment has been given. It is inappropriate to propose hurdles on the Fair Work Agency on the use of its powers and it should be able to decide how best it will use this and its other powers to enforce labour market legislation in each case. An amendment 272 AA, clause 92 of the bill already provides for the Fair Work Agency to prepare and publish an annual report.

We would expect this to cover all of its activities, it is simply not necessary to require individual reports on individual powers. Moving to amendment 272, AB, I was from the resistors, ultimately the business for next Parliament should be for that parliament to decide, not for us to dictate now. Speaking briefly on amendment 272 AC, of course officers from an appropriate training will carry out these powers. Clause 87.6 clearly provides a person can only exercise their powers, of an enforcement officer, to the extent specified in their appointment by the Secretary of State.

This amendment would only duplicate that existing provision. To summarise, and clause 113, this clause, together with clauses 114 and 115, delivers a manifesto equipment. It provides a new power that will enable Fair Work Agency enforcement officers to bring proceedings in an inflammatory in place of a worker. It is designed to address situations where a worker has a legal right to bring a claim, that for various reasons, including fear of retaliation, lack of awareness, or language barriers, they are unable to do so.

This clause enhances the state's ability to support the most vulnerable workers in accessing justice. And will be particularly valuable in cases involving labour exploitation, or breaches of minimum employment standards. But it will also bring broader benefits. The Fair Work Agency will be able to present multiple complaints simultaneously. This will save time and costs for workers and employers alike. It also has the potential to reduce burden on the employment tribunal system, overcurrent practices, when those claims are bought individually.

Importantly, the clause is tightly born, the legal proceedings will follow the same process as if they were brought by workers, this includes a requirement for ACAS consultation, the power can be used in cases where the notice of underpayment has been issued, under section 100. This ensures there is no duplication of enforcement mechanisms. Both the Secretary of State or the worker can appeal a decision, recognising both parties have a legitimate interest in the outcome. The clause also includes safeguards to include the Secretary of State cannot be held liable to the work of how they exercise this power.

Reflecting the discretionary and strategic nature of enforcement. My Lords, this clause forms a crucial part of the Fair Work Agency's toolkit and it enhances the effectiveness of labour market enforcement. And it delivers a manifesto commitment, upon which members in the other place were elected. I beg, therefore, that it stands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am listening very carefully to the noble Lady, the minister, but she didn't actually address either of my specific points. Given that she is saying that this rather strange clause is to defend the interest of new migrants, lack of interest of new migrants, lack of minority and ethnic folk, yet, there minority and ethnic folk, yet, there is a carveout for international workers, she didn't answer the position why that happened. Secondly, she also didn't come at me I press her to an answer on a I press her to an answer on a specific point in subsection 7 of the clause, about why de facto unemployed people fall under the unemployed people fall under the purview of this clause.

And therefore, the Secretary of State therefore, the Secretary of State could insert state apparatus into their litigation when they are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

even gainful employment. I thank the noble Lord. Apologies, I should have answered Apologies, I should have answered both of those questions. One of the issue of agricultural workers, I don't know that, I will write to the don't know that, I will write to the noble Lord. On the section 7 about people not yet employed, the clause people not yet employed, the clause was worded in that way to capture whistleblowers. So, yes, it was amended to be widened to include zero hour contract workers as well.

So, I hope that answers the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord on those points. My Lords,... Before the noble Lady concludes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lady concludes. I'm slightly confused. Because this seems to be quite a heavy hand. To capture workers that may have difficulties in understanding their difficulties in understanding their rights. And maybe, by looking... Without having to be so heavy-handed Without having to be so heavy-handed about the approach and make it look like a bit of two-tiered system, being created here, where migrant workers in particular, where the workers in particular, where the focus has been delivered on, it is focus has been delivered on, it is to look at how we can actually make the employers and employees both become informed about their rights without having such an approach without having such an approach where, actually, the people we are trying to protect will most

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trying to protect will most Well I would say to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well I would say to the noble Lady that although I did talk about migrant workers as an example, this is meant to encapsulates all is meant to encapsulates all vulnerable workers and all workers vulnerable workers and all workers that are exposed to unfair practices or intimidation, which happens rather more than Noble Lords opposite would like to acknowledge. In conclusion, the civil powers within this bill aligned with our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

manifesto commitment... I think the Minister did explain about the contracts with regard to about the contracts with regard to seven the contracts with regard to seven the contracts with regard to 7.A1 stop it was stop it was 7.27.A2 that was employed, I'm struggling to that was employed, I'm struggling to understand how there would be a whistleblower. So seeking to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whistleblower. So seeking to understand that better or would be happy for the Minister to write. I think the point of clarity and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the point of clarity and will write to the noble Lady. In conclusion the civil proceedings powers in this bill aligned with our manifesto commitment to strengthen enforcement and improve outcomes for enforcement and improve outcomes for workers through a fairer more accessible system. We need to let the Fair Work Agency operate with the tools it needs, guided by the the tools it needs, guided by the statute but not constricted by inflexible restrictions or ministerial bottlenecks, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore I ask the Noble Lord shop to withdraw amendment 271.D. And like to thank noble Lady the
18:18
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

And like to thank noble Lady the Minister for her reply. She won't be surprised to know I'm afraid I didn't buy any of those arguments. didn't buy any of those arguments. I'm also extremely grateful to my Noble Friend's Baroness Coffey, Baroness Lawlor, Lord Jackson, Lord Ashcombe, Baroness Verma for the interventions. They all made some extremely good points. I will return if I made to Lourdes Carter and Murray in a second. We've just heard this clause described as variously beyond belief, especially bonkers, and utter mess.

Quite extraordinary and perverse and unheard-of, and it's all of those things. This was an extraordinary debate where so many interesting points were made that it's really hard to sum up. But there was one that was brought to my attention by the noble Lord Sandhurst who was sitting next to me at the time. Andy points out, think this is important for the noble Lady the Minister to take account of because she has to sign on the front under section 19 1. A on the front of the bill 1998 that the Employment Rights Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, the Convention being the European Convention on Human Rights, and my Noble Friend Lord Sandhurst pointed out that he feels this might be, and needs to be explored in contravention of article 8 of those rights, the right of respect for family and private life, and I will read the relevant clause and I will read the relevant clause so it's on the record.

Has the right to respect for his private family life, his home and his correspondence. There should be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country. For the prevention of disorder or crime the protection of health or morals of the protection of the rights and freedom of others. I would be very grateful.

I don't expect the noble Lady to answer this now. I'd be very grateful if you could at least allude to the legal advice she was given before she signed the bill being not in contravention. I appreciate the government legal advisers really published, but having had some experience of government lawyers and their risk averse nature would be very surprised if they have considered this in its entirety and would be grateful if you would come back to that perhaps in the letter to my Noble Friend Lord Murray.

This is clearly one of the subjects we are going to have to return to. Because I think as both the Noble Lords Carter and Murray have explained, this is extraordinary. This is positively Kafkaesque. I think I will leave the last words to my honourable friend Lord Murray. My Noble Friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. He pointed out that we could end up in a state where we have litigation about litigation on behalf of someone who doesn't want to litigate. That is frankly absurd. But for now I beg leave to withdraw, but not before I have also congratulated noble Lady Baroness Fookes in her 55 years of public service.

I believe you were first elected on 18 June 1970 public service. I believe you were first elected on 18 June 1972 % mount in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the modern. Many congratulations. That is most kind, but we must not be diverted from the business at not be diverted from the business at hand. Is it your pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 272 leave withdrawn. Amendment 272 Baroness Noakes not moved. Amendment 272.ZZ a Lord Sharpe of Epsom not moved. There are a number in the moved. There are a number in the Noble Lords name if I may go through Noble Lords name if I may go through them very quickly.

ZZB, C, D, and E. And then we come to 272 Lord Astor And then we come to 272 Lord Astor ZA not moved, and B and C in that little group not moved. We then come little group not moved. We then come to a amendment to 70 I think move to a amendment to 70 I think move formally. Amendment proposed clause formally. Amendment proposed clause 113 page 125, 921, leave out paragraph A. The question is the paragraph A. The question is the amendment be agreed to.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. We come to amendment 272.AA, Lord Sharpe, not moved. And perhaps the same with AB, not moved and AC. Not moved. In that case we come to clause 113 stand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apart. No one is going to speak. Already spoken to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Already spoken to. OK. The question is that clause 113 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. In content." The contents have it. In clause 114 amendment 272.B, Lord clause 114 amendment 272.B, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. It needs to Jackson of Peterborough. It needs to have something happen to it. Not moved. Right. Then we come to amendment 272BA in the name of Baroness Coffey.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Coffey. I beg to move 272.BA and also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move 272.BA and also 272.D 272.BA and also 272.D32272.L 272.D 272.BA and also 272.D32272.L and to speak to clause 114. I will also with 272.J to ill I consider also with 272.J to ill I consider parts of 115. Now I have looked at the Labour Party's manifesto Make Work Pay. We've just had a debate
18:23
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Work Pay. We've just had a debate where they talk about enforcement, doesn't actually make reference to the fact this can be done with out the consent of the work involved the manifest is silent on providing funds so I thought it was worth getting into a debate about why we are having this, who it's going to go to. What sort of scale, the amount of money we are considering. And as a consequence I proposed a number of amendments which actually were tabled before we had the debate where we covered elements of this on Monday.

And in its particularly I noted the response of the Minister that the word person used in this legislation, I'm not a litigator but I'm a legislator, but I continue to learn on some of these matters. And in fact the word person could also include an employer, which I also somewhat address in aspects of some of these amendments. So one of the things I wanted to get into on this is who is this going to benefit? And their reasons for putting forward 2722BA is to try and make it very explicit that we are not talking about a trade union that money is going to go after that, you might initiate, might provide the legal advice, might provide legal assistance.

We didn't ever get to the bottom when we discussed the other day what other assistance may be, and they appreciate that maybe a catchall but it would be helpful to get some examples of what 272, paragraph C would actually cover. But I think when we are getting into this, I think it's important that this is not just seen, I appreciate there is a group Lord Fox has tabled amendments to do with legal aid but where is this really going? Now HRC has some powers, similar powers to finance proceedings, and when I asked them for the scale of the amount of money, as of last month there were four or five live cases at the moment, but since eight there were four or five live cases at the moment, but since 84 2020, -- April 2020, they had spent £1.2 million on this sort of provision.

In recognising the HRC can provide assistance already when it comes to aspects of discrimination and the like, I wanted to try and explore in this clause debate as well what it is that we, the government was signing itself up to. And as I pointed out to whom it would go. In terms of thinking, I was trying to do a probing amendment with 272.D where talking about how much it might be in terms of how much an individual could claim, whether that was for advice, whether it was for representation, and also to be looking to consider how often people might be turning to this fund that the government seeks to put forward, and should we be capping that? How many times can somebody go to get basically free advice when it comes to, I don't who would even provide this.

I don't if it would be... It could well be that we should consider should only be provided by the government legal service. And under the auspices of the Attorney- General. But I can't imagine that is what the government is thinking, but it would be easier to understand how they think this will be delivered. Part of the role of the single enforcement body was supposed to be a place for anyone to be able to go and get for free, advice. So I'm trying to understand what further is in this, and by the way that was due to be, I think it's in the Manifesto, and is in other papers they developed.

The whole intention was employees could go to the new Fair Work Agency to get advice on how this all works and what they should be doing as employers as well. So I'm interested understand as I say whereas this could be. And 272.E, conscious saying as was rightly pointed out to me a few weeks ago, I think by the noble Baroness Lady O'Grady of Upper Holloway that it said may, may provide, not last. So it's not going to become a right to get this money.

But I think it will be further statutory guidance would need to be developed and published. And ideally as quickly as possible of the effect of this section coming into effect. Because candidly, if people anticipate there is going to be extra funding available, it's important that they understand what the expectation they genuinely are going to have. In terms of 272.F, I'm trying to here address the situation that has just come up in clause 113, and I do find it hard to understand how we can be in a situation where having taken over a case, it would go against the sense of natural justice that the work themselves with then not be able to make representations to the tribunal or indeed other courts to help consider why it's been taken over and they didn't want such action.

And I felt it was important that frankly the government should pay for that. For me that felt like a sense of natural justice in that regard. In 272.G, I have raised this before but I wanted to specifically before but I wanted to specifically address it. I find it astonishing that the government is opening up this fund for people to get advice this fund for people to get advice which they can't get from I assume the Fair Work Agency, but they won't be allowed to use it towards mediation.

I think the answer given in some aspects of this debate before is that people can just go to ACAS. That's right, they can come and ACAS is free. It's free for early conciliation. It is not free for more advanced mediation. And the other aspect though is that there are plenty of other private mediation services as well. Recognising frankly that ACAS is still a publicly funded body and can only be expected to deal with a certain amount of these aspects of So, while I would like to understand further exactly who is going to get this money at the end.

Obviously, through the initiation of the work wanting advice, but is it going to be law firms? Trade unions? Is it going to be new enterprises? I don't mind. Again, it does not make sense to me that if we are prepared to do that for those sorts of bodies, why is it we are not prepared to look at private mediation services who do exist and are used actually extensively today. I know the government and the Mayor of London was actually involved in a considerable amount of civil proceedings within the last couple of years.

And one of the routes taken was to effectively use a private mediation service to see if civil proceedings could be dealt with before then, but there was a change of government, not sure what happened. Nevertheless, it was not ACAS doing this. So I think it would be worthwhile to reconsider that particular element. I think the other thing that surprises me. It does say this in the explanatory notes. The reason I have put 272 272H is because part of this, I think it's subsection 4.

Let me just turn the page, to get the detail of turn the page, to get the detail of the bill. I was surprised by subsection 4B1, this is where it ceases to relate to employment related matters. I was trying to work this out. Why is it we continue to have taxpayers money? Whether or not, by virtue of standing, poster 114, not sure if it is obvious you, but I don't understand why we would continue to do that. I believe it is possible the Secretary of State might be able to cut that off according to the notes, in terms of 4B2, but one would consider it at all surprising to me.

It would be helpful to get some scenarios as to whether that might be the case. Finally, in this element of groups, 270 2I, I can kind of understand where this is coming from. Because basically, the Secretary of State and the enforcement officers do not want to be held liable for anything they have done. But that doesn't feel very satisfactory. In terms of some of these aspects. I then move on to clause, aspects of clause 115. Again, just because of the nature of how in the timing of this bill, we have ended up jumping around somewhat.

This is about the recovery. 272J, there have been different views on this, I think it could be worth, if the Secretary of State has done this, it is not absolutely set in stone that if the award given to the person, the worker, because they will get the award and aspects of media cost, there is a risk the costs could actually, set out the government, could be higher than the award given. Now, I appreciate that regulations that are provided for here may tidy that up, to say there is no way we can go after the person.

But it does bring in this whole aspect of debt. I didn't , to be candid, that's why I have put in an amendment about that. I don't quite understand one party for one purpose, partly for another, or general purposes. It would be helpful. I appreciate we are getting technical here. But this can get messy, that's why I think I brought this up. And then finally, on 272L, I understand why the government would want to make this quite a quick proceeding, in terms of negative resolutions, and all the rest of it.

The reason I have put this in is that these regulations will only be necessary in the first place. Because my understanding, from the process of the bill, is that it incurs this as a debt. I am concerned that anything, where we are putting our citizens into debt, due to proceedings undertaken by the Secretary of State, I am happy to be corrected about this, but I think that should be done with an affirmative. So, if a house considers that.

If I was more clever or more adept at doing amendments, I would probably do it for the first time of relations, then move to negative, so we are clear. But overall, I think this is a new approach to providing taxpayers money, it certainly, I cannot see any reference in the Make Work Pay, I have already pointed out there is an analogy with HMRC, but they were talking about a very small amount of money, relatively speaking. And again, I just want to make sure that this is going to a person, not to whole bunch of organisations.

And it would be interesting to clarify what that means in terms of the employer. I beg to move.
18:36
18:37
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
this clause. I could find no clear rationale that figure would have given for clause 114, in the sense of rationale for the state, that is to say taxpayers, from the legal and other costs of civil proceedings and employment matters cases. The scope of clause 114 is huge. Not only does it cover the whole of employer trade union and relations law, but the intended recipients seem to be unlimited. My noble friend referred to the use of the word 'persons', any person who may become a party to civil proceedings.

Which covers a huge number of persons. And it doesn't seem to be any clear target for clause 114. Of course, as we also heard, the funding can extend the litigation involving non- immigrant matters as well, which does seem to me to be extraordinary. None of this adds up to clause 114 been very wide. My Lords, we already have a system in the UK for providing support for people in legal cases. It's called legal aid. It costs the taxpayer around £2 billion a year.

Nearly half of which is for civil litigation. That already has rules for employment support. Where there is no funding of legal representation, but there may be funding for advice on preparing cases. Successive governments have had to make hard choices. About what will be funded by legal aid, in order to keep the cost of legal aid within reasonable bounds for taxpayers as a whole. But now, with clause 114, the business department is going to completely undermine that by taking powers to fund legal cases completely outside of the structures and limits that have been created for the legal aid system.

So, the government are, again, showing they are, at heart, a two-tiered government. Limited backdoor legal aid for some favoured employment cases, but tough eligibility criteria and financial limits for everybody else. I now want to just turn to the costings, which my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, has mentioned briefly. I could not find out what clause 114 is going to cost. There is a limited amount of information in the paperwork that surrounds this bill, on the estimate of the costs for the Fair Work Agency overall.

But as far as I could find, there was no reference to how much the implementation of this proposal to fund legal costs would have been a totality. So, my question to the Minister would be quite simple, what are the estimates the government make for what clause one will cost? -- What clause 114 will cost? Going beyond the assumptions, how many cases does the government expects to bankroll every year? Will the government only support cases with a better than average chance of success, or will they also be funding no hope, what is the average cost of the case they think they will be funding using the powers under section 114.

And what are their assumptions about cost recovery. I would have expected to have found all of these things to be analysed in detail somewhere in the papers. But I just couldn't find anything. So, I hope the Minister can answer the specific question and explained the lack of analysis in the documentation they have prepared surrounding this bill so far. As I said earlier. I support my noble friend, Baroness Coffey's amendments in this group, and I will listen carefully to what the Minister says in response to those amendments, and indeed, to clause 114, standing part overall.

In the absence of good justification and good understanding of the costs of clause 114, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should not stand part of the bill. Very briefly, I would just like
18:42
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly, I would just like to press the Minister, but before that, commend the excellent speech by my noble friends on this particular clause. I would just like to press the Minister on subsection 4, in the explanatory notes. Because we have talked about the concept of persons and what that actually persons and what that actually means. And my noble friend spoke earlier about ministerial powers and the lack of information on cost. We should have been a proper more detailed impact assessment.

And is not any supporting material, including party manifesto for a general election. And presumably, the Minister will say such information and form and function of this clause will be developed in secondary legislation. If I could just ask her about subsection 4. It's an extremely sentence, because it actually touches on what is potentially ultraviolet, certainly, what I think will be subject to litigation or judicial review for because it says, given this is an employment rights Bill, about labour relations and employment, it says, subsection 4 makes provisions for situations where proceedings are made partly to trade union law, and partied with the matters.

I simply don't understand what those other matters can be. This was an employment law bill, it's about labour relations and the relations between the employer and the workforce, what else is in this clause 114? I do think we need to press the Minister on that. The noble Lady, the Minister, because we have been invited to give a blank check with taxpayers money to something that is very opaque, we don't understand, is not costed, and not detailed, and on that basis, I think the Minister should address the specific issues.
18:44
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, Baroness Noakes, and my noble friend, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. For some penetrating questions about the power to provide legal assistance as set out in clause 114. First of all, I'd like the noble Baroness, the Minister, to share with us what discussions have been held with the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, because a number of the points made by my noble friend's do relate to the fact that there is already legal aid available in certain circumstances.

So, what is this all about? And as my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, said, who is this going to benefit? And we are somewhat in the dark. Because, as all three of my noble friend pointed out, the Labour Party was strangely silent on this issue prior to the election. And it's difficult to understand how this clause has come about. There is no clear rationale for taxpayers funding what could be, as my noble friend, Baroness Noakes, points out, what could be a huge There are already legal assistance...

There is already legal assistance available in certain circumstances. But we do need to clarify what this new clause 114 will do, to what extent will it apply to individuals. And certainly as my Noble Friends pointed out, it should not apply to trade unions or those acting on their behalf. If there is to be a focus for clause 114, it should remain on helping workers directly, not resourcing third-party education strategies, and that's a clear and sensible and that's a clear and sensible distinction.

There should also be on how legal assistance can be accessed. That's absolutely vital. Without clarity and transparency in how funding is allocated and sought, we do risk creating confusion, inconsistency and ultimately denying support to those who need it most. I do hope the Noble Baroness the Minister will recognise the strength of the points made by my Noble Friend. There is always the case for helping people who are in difficult positions, but we do need to make sure that any assistance is fairer, clearer and precisely targeted.

So we now await with great interest the response of the Noble Baroness the Minister.
18:47
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

I don't want to disappoint the Noble Lord, but I'm afraid he is pretty stuck with me again. I thank the Noble Baroness coffee for tabling amendments to legal assistance and for notifying, Baroness Noakes first notifying the opposition of that clause 114 of the bill stand part of the bill. Starting with amendment 2 72. BA, and as to be fair Noble Baroness coffee and others have indicated, this has overlap with not only previous discussions today but also discussions of groups on previous committee days.

The thing is my Noble Friend the Minister Baroness Jones said on Monday, the drafting of clause 114 was carefully thought through and this deliberately brought -- broad and inclusive. It is only fair that it covers not just employees but employees and trade unions. To answer a specific question from Baroness Coffey, in terms of what other assistance can be provided, this could include help understanding of procedural clients, preparation of documents or accessing expert opinion, in her. It's designed to be flexible and responsive to individual needs.

Given this we cannot support amendments to $70 to be A. On amendment 2 72.D, this would restrict the amount of support they can be offered to any individual through this power. It's not a reasonable measure, and I understand as Baroness Coffey said it was a probing amendment but the small amount proposed in the amendment would lead... Leave the power to be meaningless and as we've discussed it would be tantamount not intended as such but tantamount to racking proposal because it's such a small amount and as we've discussed this is a manifesto commitment.

The Fair Work Agency should decide how much support can be offered without being constrained to financial limits for no good reason. Turning to 272.E creates an additional process before the power can be used. Part five of the bill already requires the fair work Bill to require this to be published, requiring another administrative document in this way would be burdensome and unnecessary anything we share across the House a desire that we reduce bloated bureaucracy is a phrase I think is a would be news this afternoon.

Turning to amendment 2 70 F of course the powers under clause 114 will operate in tandem with those in 113, workers were not always want to be severally represented in proceedings brought by the Fair Work Agency. They can be represented but don't have to be full.therefore we cannot support this amendment. And 270 .G it would mean the Fair Work Agency would duplicate ACAS's existing responsibilities regarding dispute resolution. This power is not intended to be a replacement or duplication of existing support.

We can't support this amendment as a would, get enforcement landscape and we are trying with this bill to simplify it. Amendment 2 70 H would limit the scope of this power and create situations where legal assistance would have to cease even if proceedings continued, leading to unfairness. It could lead to people being unable to continue their cases, which could cover other matters such as discrimination because support can be offered. The Fair Work Agency should be able to decide what is appropriate and fair in each case.

Meant to 70.I would put an unnecessary burden on the sector of state to have insurance in place before being to provide advice on a settlement agreement. And to be fair to Baroness Coffey, she's indicated uncertainty around this and be clear this amendment wholly contradicts established government practice. I refer to paragraph 4.4 of managing public money which sets out the government should generally not take out commercial insurance and is not good value for money. To summarise on clause 114, the legal system can be intimidating, politically for vulnerable workers or those from marginalised backgrounds.

To repeat what my Noble Friend Baroness Jones said in the previous group, many vulnerable workers are reluctant or unable to bring cases to tribunal to enforce the employment rights, and this has serious consequences. Racking ploys exploit this, breaking employment law get away with it. For instance citizens advice suggest the high- paid workers are more likely to file a case with employment tribunal's pet to lower paid individuals, despite lower paid individuals being more likely to have their rights infringed. So as I say, this lets rogue employers off the hook and that's unfair for the vast majority of businesses that we all know do the right thing by their staff and want to do the right thing for their staff.

It's unfair for the vulnerable workers involved a state the obvious being denied their rights and is unfair for the rest of the workforce were denied work opportunities due to illegal practices undercutting them. As I said in the last group, that's why in the Plan to Make Work Pay, a manifesto commitment we set out that the Fair Work Agency will have powers to bring civil proceedings to uphold employment rights. The bill will give the Fair Work Agency the power to bring civil proceedings in the employment tribunal to uphold rights.

This is a critical power, particularly for situations where a worker feels unable to bring proceedings themselves, but there are occasions where a person is able to bring proceedings to the tribunal or another court but they need assistance. Whether cases for wider ramifications where people could benefit from the Fair Work Agency's expertise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lord the Minister, just remind us what extent there has been consultation with the Secretary of consultation with the Secretary of State for Justice? Has the Lord Chancellor been involved in putting Chancellor been involved in putting together this scheme, which is going together this scheme, which is going to sit alongside legal eight, for which she is responsible? It would be really helpful if The Noble Lord the Minister just make sure that the the Minister just make sure that the government is joined up in putting forward what is in a way as my Noble forward what is in a way as my Noble Friends pointed out, quite a blank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cheque which is not properly costed. Could he put us right and all this please? More than happy to, and he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

More than happy to, and he anticipates the Noble Lord Lord Hunt anticipates my comments I was just anticipates my comments I was just about to come to. But as we are at that point now, and obviously the Noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough Noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough focused on this as well. This is an expanding legal aid. The powers intended to give the Fair Work Agency a discretion to provide Agency a discretion to provide support in employment related cases.

It's not an alternative legal aid It's not an alternative legal aid and will be used in specific cases. The government will set out how the Fair Work Agency will exercises power in due course and will discuss this with a range of stakeholders. We have regular to reassure the Noble Lord hunt, regular conversations with the Ministry of Justice, including on the bills and Justice, including on the bills and fermentation. To return to as I was saying in terms of the importance of ensuring the powers, the power of legal advice is probably bounded, it cannot be used to fund a dispute resolution delivered through other routes.

Importantly, the clause protects the integrity of the courts and tribunals confirming the nothing in the clause overwrites existing restrictions on presentation imposed by legislation or judicial practice. This clause compliments the Fair Work Agency's wider role in promoting access to justice and fair treatment in the workplace. It provides a vital lever for supporting individuals who might otherwise face legal barriers alone of ensuring compliance with relevant law, and delivers a manifesto commitment upon which members in the other House were elected. Baroness Noakes asked about the cost, and this will be set out in due course and of course will be discussed with a range of stakeholders, in particular employers, trade unions and employees.

Turning finally to amendments on recovering...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A rather surprising statement. It is the Minister saying that these costs are not included in the estimates that have already been estimates that have already been given for the cost of the Fair Work Agency which were included in the various documents surrounding this various documents surrounding this bill? Because he has just implied it will be done later. And it's rather will be done later. And it's rather extraordinary to produce a clause in a bill without having a costing for a bill without having a costing for it.

So can I press him again on what the costs are, whether or not they the costs are, whether or not they are included in the existing estimates of costs the Fair Work Agency? And if not, when will they actually be made clear?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. No the costs aren't factored in, and as I said, aren't factored in, and as I said, they will be set out in due course, and following discussions with a range of stakeholders. I hope that this will appease the noble Baroness that clause 114 should stand part of the bill. Turning finally to the amendments on recovery of costs for legal assistance, regarding 270 J, legal assistance, regarding 270 J, FA individual has received legal assistance from the Fair Work Agency, any cost should be returned to where that came from.

Typically a cost of what is separate to any other awards a tribunal may make in favour of an individual. This would prevent the Fair Work Agency from recovering costs and could lead to situations whereby individuals receiving legal assistance could receive money for costs they had not incurred. I hope Noble Lords would agree this is convenient reasonable. On amendments to some Tudor K and L, removing the ability to provide for the appointment of expenditure occurred is unreasonable and could lead to uncertainty about what expense the sexiest is recoverable.

In addition, 1272L looks consequent on amendment 2 72 lots K would remove the requirement fair requirements under 114 subsection fight to be subject to any Parliamentary procedure. I'm sure this is not the noble Baroness coffees intention. Needless to say we oppose removing requirements of Parliamentary procedure's in this way. And in response to the noble Baronesses question on whether regulation is negative, this follows president from the equalities act. Indeed note and point out the noble Baroness the delegated powers from former committee have raised no concerns with the government about this power.

The legal assistance powers bill are necessary to deliver our manifesto to strengthen enforcement and to improve outcomes for workers to refer a more accessible system. These medicines would hamper that goal and maybe unintentionally limit access to justice. The current drafting has been carefully considered and is both deliver unnecessary. I therefore ask the noble Baroness coffee to withdraw amendment 2

**** Possible New Speaker ****

70.BA. Both in the case of his response

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Both in the case of his response to this group of amendments and the previous group of amendments which we responded to, the noble Baroness Jones responded to, the ministers Jones responded to, the ministers have claimed that these clauses are covered by the manifesto covered by the manifesto commitments. Now that Labour Party manifesto is not something I carry around in my handbag. But from memory, I don't think the manifesto covered these particular clauses. And what makes me so sure that this is the case is that these two is the case is that these two clauses were introduced in the other place at report stage.

They were not part of the original bill that was part of the original bill that was introduced. It means into a deal that they received no substantive that they received no substantive examination or discussion whatsoever. In the other place. But whatsoever. In the other place. But more importantly, it suggests to me this is not a part of the original package that can claim manifesto support. Something we will be wanting to examine that extremely carefully. If the Minister has a response now the chapter and verse to the manifesto, I would be happy to the manifesto, I would be happy to look it up afterwards.

But this is something I think we find unconvincing about part of the government's defence of these clauses.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not chapter and verse, but indeed a page number. Noble Lords can find a page number. Noble Lords can find on page 16 of the Lib party's Make Work Pay document, which was itself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part of our manifesto. Can I just press the Minister? I know he has sat down before he sits know he has sat down before he sits down so to speak, I've looked at the Make Work Pay document, and it doesn't actually make reference to doesn't actually make reference to the fact legal aid. It says we will consider measures to provide accessible and authoritative accessible and authoritative information for people on their employment status and what rights employment status and what rights they are owed.

Tackling instances where some employers can use complexity to avoid legal obligations. That's very different obligations. That's very different to what the noble Lord the Minister has outlined to your Lordship's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has outlined to your Lordship's Not to extend the debate too much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not to extend the debate too much and to do too much quoting across and to do too much quoting across the dispatch box. I say that make the dispatch box. I say that make work pay talks about the body of a single enforcement, and enforcement body, which will have the powers it needs to undertake and enforce work and bring civil proceedings upholding employment rights. I think that, to a fair-minded person would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be pretty clear. It has been, I think, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has been, I think, and exceptionally revealing debate on this group of a Midsummer clause this group of a Midsummer clause more broadly. I do somewhat agree with the Minister that the creation of being able to initiate the of being able to initiate the proceedings. Some of the work proceedings. Some of the work already. It doesn't refer to being able to do it without the consent of the worker, which I think will surprise a lot of people. It does not make references to the level of not make references to the level of financing, which we have just been discussing, in a clause 114, however, I think another point of
19:02
19:02
19:03
19:05
None Portrait Amendment:273 Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-

expanding the legal aid and employment, beyond cases to improve fairness and efficiency and fairness and efficiency and ultimately to maintain and ensure ultimately to maintain and ensure some speeding up proceedings and the use of unnecessary hearings. We do have concerns over the existing backlog of tribunals, which we have debated several times in previous debated several times in previous evenings. Causing delays of up to 2 years. Making the system quite years. Making the system quite difficult to navigate.

I begin by expressing my strong support for expressing my strong support for It proposes that the Secretary of State report on the impact of expanding access to legal aid and Employment Tribunal's, within six months of the passing of the Act. It is a modest but important proposal that recognises the reality, legal aid, and employment cases is aid, and employment cases is restricted almost entirely to discrimination claims. Leaving other discrimination claims. Leaving other serious issues, such as wages, unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, without any publicly funded legal support.

These are not single matters. For clients without legal training, navigating the process and evidentiary requirements, articulating a legal argument would be incredibly childish and challenging. It undermines fairness and efficiency and they are less likely to succeed. More valuable time at the tribunal. Due to the current backlog of tribunal cases where claimants often wait more than two years before their cases heard, two years before their cases heard, the process can feel effectively impossible to engage with.

This amendment will begin to build a case for change, based on evidence. Hope the Minister will look on this, constructively. I also welcome amendment 323. This amendment seeks to ensure that Employment Tribunal's continue to have the power for summary judgement brought on by this axe. Tribunals already use this method to resolve matters early, when one party has no reasonable prospect of success. It is an essential part of the system, avoiding unnecessary hearings, reducing pressure on tribunal time. With the bill creating a new route and increasing the volume of cases, the availability of judgements and those procedures are more important than ever.

It provides certainty to respondents, facing an merit's claims and it reassures claimants that the case will be dealt with proportionately and swiftly. When clearly valid. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this power will remain fully enforced under the new regime's and the guidance will reflect the continued relevance of these points. Finally, I note the amendment tabled by Lord Sharpe, including 207 G A... These are concerned with ensuring the Employment Tribunal system has the capacity and the resources to absorb the responsibilities.

These are legitimate concerns and considerations that the Minister should address. Tribunal delays are a source of frustration to many users. It is the right that this will interact with the wider system. I would urge caution against suggestions until conditions are perfect. What it needed was a parallel process, sensible, targeted reform of the one hand, sustaining investment in the system in the other. I picked a move.
19:07
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 115, insert the following clause is printed on marshalled List.
19:07
19:08
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I'm I'm very I'm very grateful I'm very grateful to I'm very grateful to my I'm very grateful to my noble I'm very grateful to my noble friend Baroness Coffey, for introducing her amendment and also to the noble Lord Goddard for speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Fox's amendment in this group. I will speak very briefly. As to the amendments tabled by Lord Fox. The first of which proposes a report on the expansion of legal aid, and Employment Tribunal's. It doesn't in itself change entitlements but it seeks to prompt a structured exploration of the options.

Legal aid is of course a complex and often contested area and this amendment simply calls for a government led review which considers both employer compliance and other financial position of the workers. It is reasonable to assess whether the current system adequately supports access to justice and employment disputes. This is a question that is really for Lord Fox, I will discuss outside but to get on the record, I'm curious to know whether the options he describes under section 1 of his extends to small and medium-sized employers, as well.

I would be rightful to know whether he thinks they should be included, within that survey, based on the fact that many of them will also be suffering a summer financial hardship. Turning to the second proposed clause and summary judgement and Employment Tribunal's. Such a power could offer an Dean of reducing the burden on tribunal's improving efficiency and focusing resources on cases where the issues generally require thorough examination. In short I think both of these amendments are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interesting and I'm looking forward to hearing the Minister's response. My Lords, firstly I'm going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, firstly I'm going to speak to amendment 279 H my name
19:10
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
speak to amendment 279 H my name which increases the time limit for Tribunal, in relation to paid time off for employee representatives in consultation on certain changes to occupational and personal pension schemes, for 3 to 6 months. This would amend the Employment Tribunal time limit that is set out in the schedule to the occupational and personal pension schemes, And regulations 2006. This amendment is essential to ensure consistency with the time limits, for the majority of tribunal claims, which will be amended to 6 months throughout the bill.

This is a technical amendment which brings consultations on pension schemes, in line with the other clauses in the bill, regarding time limits that are being increased, which will set out. Increasing tribunal time limits will provide employees and employers with more time to resolve disputes internally, or through the conciliation process as well as more time for employees to consider the merits of bringing a claim for an employment tribunal 's top judges will continue to hear out of time will continue to hear out of time claims on a case-by-case basis.

If returned to the noble Baroness, Baroness Coffey's amendment 279 G Z A, which seeks to provide the Through, which seeks to provide that the extension of the tribunal time limits from 3 to 6 months does not apply in respect of industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland. We have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Executive, to develop an approach to extending time limits, which respects the assembly competence, to legislate on Are in UK wide legislation, that extends to Northern Ireland and that relates to matters that are reserved, such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

This bill commends the time limit to the industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland. We will continue to work with the Executive to consider implementation and if appropriate, these changes may come into force at different dates for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The bill does not commend time limits legislation that extends them to Northern Ireland and is transferred, i.e. Broad powers. On amendment 273 and 323, I understand Lord Fox is a motivation in bringing these amendments. I thank Lord Goddard for proposing them so ably.

For the reforms we are making there is going to be vital work for workers to enforce their employment rights. Tribunal's including the Employment Tribunal's are designed to be informal, accessible at a low cost means of accessing justice. And I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gothard that the backlog of tribunal claims at the moment is unacceptable. We are taking steps to address the backlog, in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice and the Fair Work Agency can also play a part in easing of that load.

We will be able to debate these measures that were taken further in later groups. However, I would like to reassure the noble Lord that aid is available subject to means merit available subject to means merit test in relation to discrimination and the Act 2010. Where it falls outside the scope of legal aid, funding may still be available in the exceptional case funding scheme. Members of trade unions will receive advice and representation anyway as part of their membership. Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Fox's amendment on Employment Tribunal summary judgements, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Gothard that Employment Tribunal's have a wide range of existing powers to address a week claims, and responses including a strike out and default judgements and to achieve the aims set out in this amendment.

The strikeout of rules, strikeout rule and it's framing an application is already similar to that of the 24, in the civil procedure rules. It allows Employment Tribunal's to strike out half or all of the claim response, including where there is no reasonable prospect of success. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Gothard to remove amendment 273. Gothard to remove amendment 273.
19:15
19:16
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-

Is a geologic pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. In men and 273.A and B not moved. The questions that clause 116 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Clause 17 amendment 2 73.B Lord Jackson not moved. 2732BA Lord Sharpe not moved. The question is that clause 117 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it.

Clause 1 a amendments to 73.C and D Lord Jackson not moved. The questions that clause 1 a stand part of the bill As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. In clause 119 amendment 2 73.E Lord Jackson not moved. The question is that clause 19 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. In clause 120, amendments to 73 to F and G Lord Jackson not moved.

The questions that clause 120 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Clause 121 amendments to 73.H and I Lord Jackson not moved. The question is that clause 121 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. The question is that clauses 122 the question is that clauses 122 2125 stand part of the bill en bloc.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Clause 126 and 273J Lord Jackson not moved. The question is that clause 126 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. The question is that clause 127 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contrary, "Not content." The contents have it.

Clause 128 MM is 273 to K and ill not moved. The question is 128 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. The question is schedule eight the eighth schedule of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. The question is clauses 129 the question is clauses 1292 the question is clauses 129 2131 en bloc stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. In men and 273.LA Lord Sharpe not moved. We come now to clause 132 amendment 2 73.M Baroness Jones move formally. The question is this amendment be agreed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendment 2 73 Lord Jackson not moved. The question is clause 123 -- 132 as amended stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. In schedule nine amendment 2 732P Baroness Jones move formally. The question is that amendment be agreed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. The question is schedule nine is amended to be the ninth schedule of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. The question is that clause 133 stand part of the bill.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. The question is clause 134 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. The question is that clause 135 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. After clause 135

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 2 73.PA Nissan way. I beg to move amendment 2 73.PA
19:20
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move amendment 2 73.PA which is a real want amendment to echo my Noble Friend. I'm very conscious that I have a single amendment to this bill and that others have laboured to what is well into day 10 I think and that there are other Noble Lords who are waiting for the important discussion on the Casey review. So I will try to be almost telegraphic. This amendment is about a firewall with the objection of protecting workers who are in great need of protection, so it's squarely within the fair work agency client base if you like.

The firewall is to restrict the disclosure for use, for immigration purposes of information about someone who has suffered labour abuse or witnessed it. That may sound counterintuitive. Surely these sound counterintuitive. Surely these are people who, which all agencies, about whom all agencies of stay should have information. In the case of migrant workers, the situation is not so straightforward. It was during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 that I first heard about the conditions in which some overseas domestic workers existed, and I use that term rather than lived, slavery was the right term.

Changing the rules then was made, but it was minor and quite inadequate. Our Lord did not and does not protect them -- our law. And migrant workers as it should. Migrant workers not only overseas domestic workers are particular vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Because not just of the consequences if their existence comes to the attention of immigration authorities but because of the fear, their fear of the consequences. If you don't know your way around the system, you are on the wrong side of the power balance with an employer who is unscrupulous, who can threaten you, that you will be detained, deported.

You will have your children taken away. So you can't take the risk of reporting abuse and exploitation, reporting to anyone in authority. I understand that fear is well- founded. I'm told by the sector that evidence indicates that data is often shared between labour enforcement agencies, the police and immigration and. Have no obligation to share, but they do. Anyway, that's not surprising. They have their own jobs to do, and I am personally not surprised because I have my own long history of opposition to paragraph 4 of schedule two of the data protection act.

Which allows that sharing. That was opposition with which someone who is now in a very high place in current government became associated, and let the troops into the right lobby. The current situation has a widespread effect, fosters mistrust of migrant communities, it prevents the police and labour inspectors from doing their jobs properly. It drives down conditions for all workers. Secure reporting has been implemented elsewhere. Including the Netherlands and Spain. And I was pleased to say, the Surrey police have set up, implement it a firewall.

The Greater London authority is undertaking a pilot. Had I more time, I would explain the detail of those. Secure reporting mechanisms are really badly needed in many sectors. Agriculture, health, social care, cleaning, domestic work. Your immigration status should not mean that you should not have access to safe, decent working conditions. And be protected against abuse and exploitation. My amendment has been signed, and I'm grateful to them, Lord Watson and The Lord Bishop of London, and my Noble Friend Lord Paddick and in turn I've signed his two amendments, which are in this group.

They are probing amendments. And they are hugely important because they seek to ensure that the Fair Work Agency, which is not a legal entity. a will be an agency of the Department of Business and Trade created administratively. The fair work agency can carry out all the powers and functions of the GLAA, or that somebody does because the GLAA is able to do in this area must not slip out of the legislative framework.

I beg to move.
19:26
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-

Proposed after clause 135 insert the new following clause is printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled list. I rise to speak to amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments 279.net is AA and 279.ZB in my name and that of my honourable friend and and that of my honourable friend and ability Baroness Hamwee. But before I speak to them, can I say how much I support my honourable friend the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee's amendment, 273.PA? These are probing amendments as the noble Lady has just said. To seek reassurances from just said. To seek reassurances from the Minister that the Fair Work Agency will have the capacity and the focus to maintain the safeguards provided by the Modern Slavery Act provided by the Modern Slavery Act currently undertaken by the gang and labour abuse authority, the GLAA.

labour abuse authority, the GLAA. And I'm grateful to Dame Sarah Thornton, a former independent slavery commissioner and her colleagues at the University of colleagues at the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University for highlighting these University for highlighting these issues. The GLAA has two important responsibilities under the Modern responsibilities under the Modern Slavery Act in this context. As a first responder, referring victims of modern slavery into the National of modern slavery into the National Referral Mechanism. And a duty to notify the Secretary of State for the Home Department in cases where victims of modern slavery refuse to be referred.

To ensure The Home Office has a comprehensive understanding of the nature and extent of modern slavery and those affected by it. My understanding is that under this bill the GLAA will be abolished and its responsibilities will be taken over by the Fair Work Agency. But it's not clear from the legislation where the GLAA is first responder status and duty to notify will also be transferred or whether amendments such as those proposed are necessary to ensure that these important responsibilities and duties are carried out by the Fair Work Agency once the GLAA is abolished.

In addition, the GLAA is focused on protecting vulnerable and exploited workers and illegal activity such as human traffic, forced labour and illegal labour provision. As the Fair Work Agency will have a much wider remake, including what is wider remake, including what is currently HMRC's National -- minimum wage and their work standards expected. If the Fair Work Agency is not adequately resourced, the emphasis is likely to be on compliance rather than enforcement. Ensuring the Fair Work Agency has a Ensuring the Fair Work Agency has a first responder status and duty to notify, it is more likely to retain the level of expertise in the area of modern slavery.

Under section 43 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the GLAA has a duty to cooperate with Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, enabling the Commissioner to access unpublished information that assists in understanding and responding to modern slavery in the UK. Again it's unclear whether the Fair Work Agency will also have the statutory duty to cooperate with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner in the same way as the GLAA that it is replacing Foster and the Second Amendment makes this duty explicit. Can the Minister reassure the committee that focus on modern slavery is not being lost or deleted by the absorption of the Gangmasters Act and labour abuse authority into the Fair Work Agency, and that either through a lack of resources or a lack of expertise.

And that the statutory responsibilities of the GLAA as a first responder and its duty to notify and duty to cooperate with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner or not be lost or deleted as a result of these changes. I look forward to the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to support the amendments standing in the name of Baroness
19:30
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
Hamwee, 273PA, and I will do so very briefly, but this is an important issue. I want to give an example as to why this amendment is so important. Following a five-month Freedom of Information battle, the bureau of investigative journalism was finally given access to 19 farm inspection reports produced by the inspection reports produced by the Nearly half of the 845 seasonal migrant workers interviewed placed welfare issues including racism, wage theft and threats are being sent home.

In nearly 2/3 of farms inspected workers said they were not always paid for the hours they worked, were sick or travelling or that they faced pay deductions, beyond the maximum allowed by law. Workers who complained were ignored or told they could leave the farm and go back to their home countries. One Visa sponsor who was a tape recorded by workers protested about recorded by workers protested about working conditions. "Look, do you want to go home, shish then. " In a report by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found that none of the allegations raised during these inspections was ever investigated by the Home Office.

Workers understandably concluded that the Home Office was more interested in checking their immigration status and upholding their rights at work. The only way that the Fair Work Agency can do its job of stamping out exploitation is to guarantee safe reporting. Only then can migrant workers speak out about exploitation at work, without fear that it will result in the bad employer silencing them by removing their visas. Ultimately, as Baroness Hamwee said, the right working people are only ever as strong as those of the most vulnerable workers.

This amendment seeks safe reporting which will benefit workers and DSIT employees alike. I hope my noble friend the Minister can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support it to. I rise to speak to this, I'm
19:33
19:34
19:36
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

Paddick for totalling two seven nine Z A and Z B, and lady how we for her Z A and Z B, and lady how we for her amendment 273 P A. With his amendment 273, we have seen two ends of the spectrum into an approach of information sharing. One might speculate that perhaps we have the balance with what we are proposing in this bill. Noble Lords might agree with that. Turning to 279 Z A and Z B.

The noble Lords are seeking assurances Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority's, vital work, tackling labour abuse will continue under the work agency. Let me provide that reassurance very clearly now. Actual labour abuse and modern slavery will be absolutely core and central to the mission of the new agency. We can, and certainly very happy to join the sentiment set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. Modern slavery is a stain on our society, as well as on our economy. We are determined as the government to continue to work and stamp it out.

My noble friend Baroness Grady set out very starkly for us why this continued exploitation needs our continued focus and vigilance. All the Gangmasters Act labour abuse authority functions, including in relation to labour abuse are transferred to the Secretary of State. Vital work we are committed to ensuring there is no disruption as we set up a Fair Work Agency. Fair Work Agency will continue to work and include partnership, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, the GLAA does now, to disrupt patterns of exploitation, across sectors like agriculture, construction and adult social.

This bill lays the foundation to build on successful working relationships between the Commissioner and the GLAA. Clause 132 and social nine together will enable two-way sharing of information, this will help fulfil the statutory functions. To address never Lord Paddick's questions, the Fair Work Agency will still have a first responder status and still have a duty to notify. Regarding amendment 273 PA, in Baroness Hamwee's name. I do appreciate the Baroness is concerned here. There is a need for information to be shared to help protect the public, including vulnerable migrants from harm.

Indeed, the need for this is recognised by the department in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. We must always, also remember, the mechanisms already exist to support those of insecure immigration status and may be victims of abuse. The National Referral Mechanism is in place, to ensure that individuals can be properly identified and supported, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. A framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery and ensuring they receive the appropriate support. The online appropriate support.

The online process allows for respondents to be referred to a single online form, regardless of their location in the UK and whether the victim is an adult or a child. This provides a structured and put a compassionate route for victims of slavery to receive help without fear of immigration consequences. I am concerned that creating a legislative blocker to sharing could have unintended consequences make it harder for vulnerable individuals to get that they need and deserve. Mind of Department continue to work with the Home Office, to ensure we strike the right balance between protecting vulnerable workers are maintaining the intention of our system.

Therefore I ask Baroness Hamwee to withdraw amendment 273 PA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness O'Grady, I'm also surprised that she was able to produce that example, there are lots of examples. I would say to the noble Lady I would say to the noble Lady Baroness Coffey, data protection is therefore a good reason. The current situation, I cannot say breaches, situation, I cannot say breaches, but it does not observe that data. but it does not observe that data. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt has referenced human rights abuse and used the important term used the important term safeguarding.

It feels disjointed from the response from the Minister. We will have a good read of it and I think we might be returning to the issue, in the next Home Office bill issue, in the next Home Office bill which is coming. Lord Hun Sen has reacted. With regard to Lord Paddick's amendments, I still do not Paddick's amendments, I still do not follow quite how the assurances can be implemented. I wonder if I can
19:41
19:42
19:44
None Portrait
-

19:44
19:46
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
been let down. This audit by the noble Baroness lady Casey lays bare the scale of the institutional failure across the country. I pay failure across the country. I pay tribute to all those survivors who have been so-systematically ignored by survivors with fears of being by survivors with fears of being branded a racist. Those who have come forward to whistleblow and share the harrowing stories have share the harrowing stories have Survivors such as Fiona Gothard who Survivors such as Fiona Gothard who was exploited and abused by an Asian grooming gang at the age of 14, while living in care in Bradford.

She was led to believe that her She was led to believe that her abuse is cared for her, before they plied her with drugs and continued to rape her. I cannot imagine the horrors experienced by the many thousands of children groomed by thousands of children groomed by these gangs. I'm particularly concerned and of raised the matter with the level of the Minister in questions early today as to what questions early today as to what steps the government would take to ensure that the victims are at the ensure that the victims are at the These file crimes are still being These file crimes are still being perpetrated.

Young girls are still being groomed and sexually exploited being groomed and sexually exploited by gangs, as the noble Baroness Lady Casey's report makes abundantly clear. The fact these gangs continue to operate with young girls still not being believed and therefore it is not being heard makes it even more difficult to understand why the government has taken so long to listen to what my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition has been saying since January. The Conservatives gave the Prime Minister three opportunities in the other place to do a full national enquiry.

Not only this, but government ministers repeatedly opposed to such enquiry. Secretary of State for Education accused those who called for an inquiry Dragon jumpers. We don't care about children. The Leader of the House of Commons said the issue was a dog whistle. The Minister for Safeguarding rejected an appeal by Oldham Council for a national inquiry last October and in April this year announced five local inquiries. The noble Lord the Minister said on 22nd April the response to a question that I post that we could have a national inquiry as the noble Lord has mentioned, but this government's judgement is that we know what the problem is.

Even the promise to himself said that anyone calling for an inquiry was jumping on a right- wing, a far-right bandwagon. Repeatedly opposed holding such a national enquiry. He has now changed his mind once again, so can the noble Lord the Minister explain why the government hosts a national enquiry. Along -- post. And why they have done a complete about-face -- why they opposed it. Surely now is the time for the government to apologise for repeatedly making. About those who have been calling for this national inquiry since January.

Finally I would like to place on record my thanks to the noble Baroness Lady Casey, for her no-nonsense, hard-hitting and thorough audit. Her candour and tenacity are exemplary. She has not shied away from highlighting the fact that these child rape gangs were comprised of largely Pakistani men, a point that all too many had previously been scared to make. She highlights faults in the available datasets, as the report states, the complex organised child-abuse dataset includes all child sexual abuse and exploitation that is committed by two or more perpetrators.

This includes familial abuse, child and child abuse and institutional abuse. It it is therefore difficult to ascertain the true scale of grooming gangs. There are 12 recommendations presented in the audit and I look forward to hearing in detail, the detail of indeed, how and when the government will take them forward.
19:48
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I declare my interest as a vice president of the Local Government Association and I want to start by paying tribute to both the victims and to the whistleblowers from the police and other authorities for their bravery and absolute consistency in continuing to fight their calls. I'm sorry that the Conservative spokesman has taken the line that he did. I'm afraid from these benches, we have a different standpoint. It was really disappointing on Monday to hear the Leader of the Opposition attack the current government, when governments of all parties over recent decades, including my own, but especially the Conservative government, commissioned Professor Jay's Excel report, published their response, but then did nothing.

Surely it is better for all of us to counter this inhumanity and admit that time after time politicians fail to listen. And this is just about parliamentarians. This is about elected mayors, councillors, assemblies, and authorities to. We didn't just felt a listen but we all failed to act. Lady Casey said now is the time to write wrong. And that is correct. The victims and the whistleblowers, even when reported in the news and documentaries, have had to listen time and again to promises of action but nothing changing.

It is refreshing that the statement says that the government will act on all of Lady Casey's recommendations. But we know this promise has been made before the matter complex and long standing incidents over the years, and I'm sure there are still some continuing, as Lady Jay said in her IICSA report, we lie to ourselves if we think that child sexual abuse and exploitation is not happening now. We are at the moment of seeing similar issues with the slowness of the Post Office scheme and the Windrush scheme.

So can I say to the Minister, that with confidence, will you Lordship's House here that the enquiry is going to be set up swiftly, and fully funded, couldn't support for victims as has been promised for the other schemes I have mentioned, but not always appeared. And will they also draw evidence from the previous reports and reviews, so that evidence it takes will build on what is already known. As I mentioned earlier at Oral Questions, there are two reasons for this. The first is it is much less traumatic for the victims and whistleblowers, many of whom have had to give the same evidence many times, each time revitalising them.

Secondly, it should ensure short evidence of the enquiry. Because as the statement says, there is an urgent need for accountability and action, the perpetrators, the organisations didn't protect these children's one they were raped and groomed, including councils, the police, the Judiciary Committee social workers and more. Can I ask the Minister if victims including whistleblowers will be supported properly right from the start, right from now, including not re- victimising them again. I also asked the Minister how long it will take to review the convictions that some of these young, mainly, girls, received, because they were perceived as being complicit and able to give consent when they were plainly children and should not have been treated as such.

And what steps will government be doing now in light of Lady Casey's audit review to ask councils, the police, the Judiciary Committee social workers and others to review their working practices now? Whilst the enquiry's future reporting recommendations are important, it is evident that is enough for those organisations to reflect and change the practice now, in light of this audit review. The government has promised a form of mandatory reporting, as well as a bill on the duty of candour.

Can the Minister say when we will see it in Parliament because both are urgent to prevent this happening again in the future. The recommendations relating to appropriate data collection and data sharing are also vital and I'm afraid long overdue. The use of the Smith algorithm in West Yorkshire sounds helpful in identifying people possibly in scope as victims and survivors, and will this be rolled out elsewhere, given West Yorkshire's positive experience? Turning to taxidrivers, Lady Casey's report proposes research into the drivers group based child's expectation including online.

Unlike, children's workers involved, and other group child sexual expectation. Taxidrivers are below the regulatory radar other than the licence for the taxis. So will the government ensure that statutory standards for taxidrivers will be brought in, and that it will end the out of area taxis plying their trade in areas many miles away, where they are not on the radar of the local authority in which they are trying to work? And will the government publish a plan for communications with the wider public? This is a highly sensitive topic for young people, for families, and for communities.

And in particular, will the government work with faith groups and with community groups? Lady Hazarika rightly pointed out during Oral Questions that most Muslims are absolutely horrified at this behaviour, of small groups of truly evil men. But it will be important for these communities to understand what they need to do to prevent it from ever happening again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to both frontbenchers for their contributions and for the questions, contributions and for the questions, I will try as ever to address those issues in my response. Let me go straight to the heart of the noble straight to the heart of the noble Lord Davies's challenge to the government. the situation of accepting the enquiry
19:55
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
accepting the enquiry recommendation. When we came to office last year, we looked at the IICSA recommendations which had been ignored for two years by the previous government. We have accepted and began to implant the vast majority of those recommendations, there are some we are still examining but the broad direction of travel is to accept. We commission Baroness Casey, to whom I pay tribute, to produce the report on the emerging trends and how that four or five major potential inquiries were progressing and whether it needed national coordination.

She added that with open mind and has come back and make 12 accommodations including the government producing national frameworks and standards as part of an inquiry to support the local inquiries that were commissioned and were taking place. I don't regard that as being a U-turn. I regarded as being a positive contribution from an independent colleague of ours, the noble Baroness Lady Casey, and the 12 recommendations coming forward in a way that we can make further progress to tackle this horrendous issue which enabled mentions extreme well impacts front victims -- which the noble Baron mentioned.

And it is beholden on this House to look at those recommendations seriously, and we have accepted the need for that national inquiry. Both Baroness Brinton and the Labour Lord Davies have mentioned about how the inquiry will be established. I said earlier in questions, will be bringing that forward at the early opportunity. We have to appoint a chair and set terms of reference. We had the report this week, but we will do that it is relatively shortorder and I will report back to this House when that is complete.

The noble Baroness Lord Davies also mentioned the question of victims. We want to ensure the victims are central to this. And that their testimony and the experience is brought to the enquiry. And we will be giving a mandate to the chair, whoever he or she may be, to bring forward that support to victims in due course, a point and also by the noble Baroness Lady Brinton. Since the election, more than 800 grooming and cases originally dropped by the police have been reopened as well and the child sexual expectation police task for has increased arrests by over 50% in the past year.

So there is action on the ground as well as progress on the recommendations. It may help both liberal and her's opposition if I just run through quickly the 12 recommendations. One of which is the inquiry which we have accepted. Recommendation one, mandatory charges of rape, we going to begin an immediately cetacean with the CPS and police to develop elective trained in that recommendation. Accommodation national police operation, we are actively going to be increasing policing and strategy partners to design and operation which will now take criminals to task, and much more strategic and energetic way.

The national inquiry was a recommendation we have accepted. The noble Baroness mentioned within the clonal convictions of victims. We will be legislating in the Police and Crime Panels, just completed its passage in the House of Commons, to put a scheme in place, and when legislation has been passed, that will occur. The monetary correction of ethnicity data, extremely important point raised in questions earlier, will be undertaking that and we are commissioning that now to begin immediately, for police forces will issuing guidance.

The mandatory... Is a provision in the child well being in Schools Bill, currently before Parliament and we are making it clear that information has to be shared. Recommendation from Baroness, the noble Baroness want unique reference numbers for children, that is in the school and , Schools Bill before the House. Baroness Casey's recommendation on support and drivers of group based child's expectation, that work is going to begin immediately on the Home Office. The Baroness Brinton mentioned taxi licensing, the Department of Transport, I can say from the Dispatch Box today, is committed to working as quickly as possible to consider the options that the Baroness Hasbrouck forward.

So on all 12 recommendations, this government will say from this Dispatch Box, on this day, we will be taking those forward and I hope that is welcome across the House. I'm slightly confused. I hope the House will bear with me. The noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower has been pressing this government to implement the IICSA regulations and ask questions about the recommendations on child's grooming on a range of other matters, which will of which I have informed this House, even as early as questions today, we are going to be in the Police and Crime Panels before the House of Parliament.

He hasn't got the opportunity but maybe he could think about this because not one hour ago, His Majesty Official Opposition in the House of Commons voted against the Police and Crime Panels at third reading. And in doing so, voted against the measures to implement the IICSA report in the police and crime bill before this House. His opposition, his members of Parliament have walked through the lobby voting against those measures, not Juan Arango. And not just those measures, measures of retail crime, profession of retail crime, profession of That will come to pass very shortly for second reading.

He has an opportunity at second reading, and a couple of weeks time to think through the position on this and to reflect as to whether his party, whose leader, his official shadow home secretary can continue to support the opposition to the police and crime bill measures. Because at those police and crime bill measures are the very things that he stood up, along with the noble Baroness, to support. I will just let him potentially reflect. Not just himself as well. The Reform Party voted against the third reading of the police and crime bill.

I'm not sure what this is coming to but these are measures that are important today, because in the grooming gang recommendations which were accepted here today, we will implement them in the police and crime bill. If it is in the position It will not become law. If this is passed by this House. Also he has not supported the measures that I thought he was supporting on child sexual exploitation, which we put in the police and crime bill, to meet the Ixta requirements, things such as mandatory reporting.

I will put that before the House. It is hot off the press and I think it is worthy of reflection. I give him and the Baroness Brinton the commitment that the 12 recommendations before the government, from Baroness Casey will be implemented. We will, as we have done implement the vast majority of the Ixta recommendations and still outstanding how we can we can continue to press down through prosecution and police activity on grooming gangs to ensure we tackle those and I commend this statement to the House.

And are happy to answer further questions in detail.
20:03
20:04
20:06
20:06
20:07
20:08
20:09
20:11
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I extend my apologies to Baroness Brinton. I'm trying to cover a range of issues in a very short time. Can I say to her and the noble Lord on the question on the duty of care, the Hillsborough law. He will know Had a manifesto commitment to introduce the legislation. As yet it hasn't been introduced. I know that there is work being done, behind the scenes to do that. I know, as a supporter of a Liverpool Football Club, someone who is followed a member of Parliament had constituents who were victims of the Hillsborough incident.

It would be very welcome as a piece of legislation. It is still being worked on in government terms will be published in due course. In that way. He has also mentioned the support of voluntary organisations. It is extremely important that they do that. I hope the prospective chair, he or she, will be looking at reaching out and looking at the local voluntary sector as well. He is absolutely right to say that is absolutely right to say that victims no no ethnicity. There are perpetrators from every walk of life in every religious and ethnic group, including white British and there are victims from every particular group.

What we do have is a focus on particularly organised gangs and that has been prevalent in certain places and at the noble Baroness Casey has made recommendations, which we will look at the collection which will help again in the future. What is happening, God forbid to the perpetrator.
20:14
20:14
20:14
20:14
20:14
20:16
20:17
20:18
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I think the banister was referring to the fact that people in the far-right using this to exploit the prejudices and to step up for and hatred. What I'm trying to do, and I hope the noble Lord, I'm sure he will, will share, is to find concrete solutions and accepting the recommendations here and accepting the recommendations as far as we can the recommendations as far as we can so far in the IICSA report and by taking positive action by encouraging the police to go after particular groups that we know now can have their cases reopened and improve the persecution rate accordingly.

It is right that a core duty of a police officer should be to follow the evidence and truth and not worry about the background of the person who may or may not be a perpetrator. I will ensure that the guidance is given by Chief Constable to ensure the police understand that duty, as I believe they now do. Can I urge more humility and a little less complacent gaslighting. little less complacent gaslighting. No parties have clean hands.

Many people, including the victims, were smeared as racists for even raising smeared as racists for even raising the issue and that includes in this House as an aside. Can the Minister tell us will the 2020 Home Office tell us will the 2020 Home Office paper be immediately withdrawn, now that Baroness Casey has exposed its much cited full claim that group much cited full claim that group based CSE offenders are most commonly white. Which the audit says does not seem evidenced by research does not seem evidenced by research or data.

I.e. Its misinformation. It's a sort of Whitehall policy It's a sort of Whitehall policy version of the literal Tippex and out of the word Pakistani. Can the Minister assure us that report will now be taken out of public circulating? I'm grateful for the questions. Let me say two things to her. The 2020 report as I can recall was not produced by this government of this Home Office. I will look at that report and I will look at the action.

But Baroness Casey herself, noble Baroness Lady Casey said only yesterday at the Home Affairs Committee, " if you look at the data on child's exportation, suspects and offenders, it's disproportionately Asian heritage. If you look at the data for child abuse, this is not the support that, it is white man". We need to accept the discussions we have had on the focus we have had today and look at what the possible solutions are for the future in dealing with this stop and the measures we have taken.

When she says we need less complacency and more humility, I have stood at this Dispatch Box under half of this government, accepted all 12 recommendations from Baroness Casey, accepted the bulk of the recommendations from the IICSA report were put in place additional police support to tackle action on historic cases, putting an additional police support to give 50% more offenders to justice. I don't think that is complacent. I will say to the noble Lady try to work with this constructively. Let's look at the solutions.

I will accept constructive criticism but I'm not going to accept criticism and called complacent when we have accepted the recommendation and done the things recommendation and done the things And...
20:21
20:22
20:23
20:24
20:25
20:26
20:26
20:26
None Portrait Amendment:275 Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-

legislation as it is, with a number of members of this committee, and noble Lords in general full-time years but I've been to physically grateful to back noble friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch -- I've been particular grateful. He has really given me, she and her officials have been generous with their time and responded to me by agree to consider my proposal on a specific bill that will cover these issues not too long into the future. As I say, there has been a broad consensus in British politics for some years that there should be, there shouldn't be discover nation in pay.

We have had the Equal Pay Act since 1970 and successive legislation. I don't believe it has been controversial in party physical terms. That will be 75 years of equal pay legislation this December and still nowhere near a coupe. My own view is that there is a fundamental design fault right from the beginning and the legislation, so brilliantly made in Dagenham. Because the enforcement mechanism was wanting. I have said this before, there is no other area of regulation that we take seriously in this country that we would leave to an individual citizen or consumer tech and for for themselves.

Imagine school standards, food standards, nuclear safety standards, health and safety standards, environmental standards and so on, if the only enforcement mechanism in that legislation was for the individual citizen to investigate the regulatory breach and then with or without the support of a trade union or an NGO to see for themselves. That has been the position for individual workers and equal pay legislation from the very start -- to sue for themselves. I think that is problematic.

And so my amendment creates the possibility of the state acting as a backstop to stand behind individual worker so that she does not have to go through those ridiculous hopes that will take years of extensive investigation and legislation. Find out what her colleagues are getting paid, not just for the same job but for the equivalent work, with all the publications around that and then with or without trade union support, to her employer. Who wants to do that? It's not a realistic regulatory enforcement mechanism.

I'm suggesting in my probing amendment that some agency of the state really ought to sit behind as a backstop in that investigation and enforcement process. And I think that if that were the case, we could actually, we can actually help to avoid unnecessary litigation and expensive litigation and the bankruptcy of some local authorities over time as well. Because a state regulator could, for example, investigate a sector, investigate a particular employer that had come to concern and have a range of regulatory options, including private notices, private conversations, before public conversations, and potential enforcement action.

And entrenched inequality in pay practice could be nipped in the bud before years transpire and debts accumulate. Having listened to some previous debates on this bill, I think this principle ought to be welcomed on all sides of the House because it could be good for business as well could be good for business as well We are always having debates about the AI revolution, occasionally I'm a bit nervous about some of the potential implications of unregulated AI. There is enormous unregulated AI.

There is enormous potential here, HMRC as I nod to in my amendment already has access to payroll information. With appropriate statutory gateways, it wouldn't take much working with wouldn't take much working with software developers to be able to do additional spotchecks on payroll to look for potential inequalities. It is not as simple as that but there is more that can be done, in particular at this moment with the AI potential for examining and analysing the payroll databases.

I really do think that this kind of approach could be a very positive development and we could really finally get a bit closer to achieving that dream made nearly 75 achieving that dream made nearly 75

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years ago. And closer to achieving equal pay for equal work. I beg to me. Amendment proposed, after clause
20:32
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 140 insert the new clause, the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Richard on the marshalled List. Rhoys has been very briefly on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rhoys has been very briefly on this clause. Quite an ingenious and
20:32
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
this clause. Quite an ingenious and intelligent clause. It is quite superficially attractive and I know the Minister will give it proper and due consideration. My only problem is that it draws an analogy that doesn't really stand up to close scrutiny. In respect of the fact that when you are employed and you have, I refer to the noble Lady's greater legal expertise. You have a personal contract, between the employee and the employer. That you have freely entered into.

Now, it may be that in the course of that contract your pay. There are societal reasons and their economic reasons why you are pay differing amounts of money. We could already be discussing that. It is not the same as that relationship you have with a nuclear power station stop when you have an expectation that you are going to be kept safe, from accidents and drastic events that happened there. Or your local water authority may be flooded, or when you go on an aeroplane, God forbid that aeroplane will crash.

You do not have that direct contractual relationship with those bodies. In other words, you essentially defer that responsibility, legally to other bodies, to intercede on your behalf and this does undermine the very concept of a one-on-one contractual relationship. I do not think it is a analogies. It is ingenious and interesting. I do not think the noble Lady with all due respect is drawing an accurate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

analogy to the two. Of course I agree with him, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course I agree with him, I would say, when you go to eat in a restaurant, or go to school, or contract, because you buy a can of baked beans. You may well have a private contractual relationship with the supplier of that good or service. Nonetheless, the state has decided that it needs to intervene, because these power relationships because these power relationships are not all equal. There is a public good and the baked beans being good to eat and the school delivering a to eat and the school delivering a good service etc.

Etc.. From the moment the UK government and they moment the UK government and they decided that there should be laws to protect food safety and health and safety, nondiscrimination and pain. safety, nondiscrimination and pain. The moment that democratic decision was taken and supported by all parties, including in your Lordships House. The moment that decision was taken it is not just a matter of private contractors between two parties any more. It is actually a matter of public policy and a wider rule of law point.

And the nondiscrimination point has been a nonpartisan one in this country. Most equality legislation has perhaps been promoted by Labour governments. The disability rights act is the obvious exception. And there has been a bipartisan consensus and that we should not discriminate because of their sex. Including in pay. We just haven't been delivering on pay, even as well as we have been doing in other areas of our lives. I think that the analogy with school standards and health and safety standards and food health and safety standards and food standards does work and if we wanted to achieve equal pay, we have to take it seriously.
20:36
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Would she therefore extend the provisions of her and the mental (Protected Characteristics), under

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Equality Act 2010. That was the most interesting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That was the most interesting exchange, I thank the noble Baroness, Barrelism Chakrabarti and Jackson for it. Just as a broader Jackson for it. Just as a broader observation, not a lawyer as I've said many times. It does seem to me there is a slight philosophical discussion developing this evening between intervention and initiation, between intervention and initiation, when it comes to various state intervention, if you like, in intervention, if you like, in certain areas of law. And I do not have any doubt at all that the noble Lady's intention, behind the amendment is to strengthen the enforcement of equal pay laws.

That is an objective she rightly says that we all support. We do feel that that we all support. We do feel that this particular proposal is somewhat this particular proposal is somewhat flawed, because we do not need the flawed, because we do not need the work. At its core the amendment risk conflating disparity with unlawful discrimination. It seems that if the pay gap exists there must be a wrongdoing. And as back Baroness wrongdoing. And as back Baroness Chakrabarti acknowledged it is not that simple.

Pay disparities can and often do arise from legitimate reasons and differences of experience, performance, geography experience, performance, geography or even negotiated terms Lord Jackson said. We think to suggest a mere statistical difference is indicative of discrimination. To abandon the nuance of the legal framework that was carefully set out in the Equalities Act of 2010. While, paying a great deal of respect to the arguments, there is considerable merit in this, we cannot support this. cannot support this.
20:38
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, like my noble friend Barrelism Chakrabarti, I am also an occasional visitor to this committee. Very pleased to be here this evening, in order to address the amendment proposed by my noble friend, amendment 275 and can I thank her for recognising the engagement that there has been with governments and others, up to this point. I think, as she says, the objective and the understanding that we share is, certainly as far as the government we want to make clear that the government shares dates behind this amendment, over 50 years, after the equal pay act, in 1970 in 15 years after the equality act 2010, it is clear that equal pay has not yet been achieved stop that is why the government has committed to strengthen the equal pay regime and to ending the pay discrimination.

And I do share the concerns of my noble friend, in identifying the challenges she has of enforcement, in this particular case. There is more that we can do to ensure that the owners does not fall only on women to find out whether they are receiving the same pay as their male colleagues for equal work. And to take enforcement action against employers, in the case of a breach. I do think it is useful to envisage an relations and points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, a system in which you have both the requirements, a contractual arrangement and the ability to take individual action.

And, and enforcement body, supports, in general terms, we have been doing that. Also as my noble friend says, identifies the thematic or consistent way in which it is being breached. That is why the government is committed to establishing an equal pay regulatory and enforcement unit, with the involvement of trade unions, as part of this. We will carefully consider how we can improve the enforcement of the equal pay scheme. On 7 April we launched a call for evidence on this issue and the wider equality law, to ensure that any steps we take lead to a meaningful strengthening of the protections, against pre- discrimination.

An objective I'm sure my noble friend will share. It is important that the government is able to develop these changes in partnership with business, trade unions and civil society in order to ensure that the law works, for everybody. And for that reason, I hope my noble friend will recognise that this will, I think, be a more appropriate process from which to address these issues. We will, as she suggests giving these areas are very close consideration, in advance of the equality, race and disability bill.

In relation to some of the specific points, about the way that this might operate, that she raises. We certainly recognise that the benefits that can arise from the government departments, including HMRC working together. HMRC of course already has a number of joint working datasharing arrangements with the departments and agencies. The government is therefore not closed in principle to establishing new datasharing arrangements, with regulatory authorities, this can support their regulatory functions. I think she made a very interesting point about the use of AI here.

Of course, it wouldn't, as I think was touched on be sufficient, simply to compare the pay of different people, working within a workplace. In unless you also have some analysis of whether or not, how that apply to the nature of the work and whether that was a work of equal value. It may well be that advances in technology, including AI would be away in which we could support that monitoring. The policy of course is at a very formative stage. And my officials will explore a wide range of options to improve the enforcement of equal pay rights.

I am sure that this may well be, whilst taking very great care to ensure safeguards are put in place, in relation to personal data, particularly where that relates to discrimination and (Protected Characteristics). I suspect this sort of description that she gave an contribution to AI is very much part of what, across government we are wanting to see, in terms of its use in the future. Therefore, can I just say, we are sympathetic to the ultimate objectives of my noble friend's amendments.

I hope she recognises that and the progress that we are intending to make on that pledge to deliver strong reinforcement mechanisms and in particular equal pay regulatory and enforcement. With that assurance will feel able to withdraw her amendment at this point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

75 years as the European Convention on Human Rights and 50 Convention on Human Rights and 50 years as equal pay legislation. If you can forgive that rather glaring you can forgive that rather glaring howler. So grateful to Lord Jackson in particular and to my noble friend the Minister's whose officials the Minister's whose officials really have been very generous and thoughtful with their time. I look thoughtful with their time. I look forward to watching their development and thinking on that
20:44
20:45
20:46
None Portrait Amendment:279ZZZA Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-

treble Z 279 treble ZA. The reason I say this, in the broader clause 144, many people may think, I'm certain many people may think, I'm certain not all of your Lordships, the crown applies to the king and the Royal applies to the king and the Royal family for. Ministers are of the Crown. UK Ministers and indeed any government building, any land that government building, any land that it has and so on and so forth. It is it has and so on and so forth.

It is much broader, the actual reality of what some of this refers to. I'm sure that Ministers are thrilled sure that Ministers are thrilled that number three applies. They will that number three applies. They will I wanted to try to understand six, B. Parliament is very special in B. Parliament is very special in B. Parliament is very special in terms of who can come and go, the Bill of Rights, all those different things. I get that. However, I'm trying to probe this because I'm trying to probe this because I'm very conscious that at the other end there are 650 small employers.

I know that the parliament to trade union, and she spends a lot of time advising their members on some of the difficulties they have, with their employers, and despite the best efforts of the HR service at the other end, there can often be a lot of difficulties and actually informally, anecdotally, quite a lot of large cheques being written. To employees. I'm not trying to impugn anybody but I think in the broader sense, there is this somewhat irony, that small businesses, often MPs don't want all these laws to apply to themselves, and here, what I'm trying to understand is that why is it we are treating specifically the houses of this Parliament to be so special in that we shouldn't have fear, the people who are working here, that is MPs or actually the houses themselves.

I'm publicly against some huge contravention about what the status of this place, and forgive me if I am, but also I would be very interested to understand why as a consequence, although Scottish ministers or Welsh ministers, Northern Ireland Minister's are not ministers of the ground, why if his House and the other house is being treated in this way, why is it not the coast for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd and for the Northern Ireland Assembly. So it was more of a probing as I've put there but frankly employers who are in this House, and the other house, should not be above the law and I want to just understand what this really means.
20:48
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the noble Lady wish to move her amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her amendment. I certainly do. Amendment proposed, in clause
20:48
20:50
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
I think the noble Baroness Baroness Coffey for her amendment and raise important topic, namely how the enforcement provisions in part five of the bill would apply to Parliament were to MPs as employers. Parliament of course has to comply with employment legislation. The bill however requires that the bill of entry cannot be exercised in relation to premises occupied for either house Parliament, otherwise part five would apply to both Houses of Parliament and to MPs as employers.

I have to say to the noble lady, we are in danger of having a deep constitutional kind of not Crisis but something slightly less than that, because our response is that the approach was agreed on the advice of the House authorities so it's not a government decision, it is the House authorities. And they are on the powerful as far as I can see, they are therefore overruling what the government may or may not think about all of this. So also it's not so unusual, it aligns with the recent president such as section 165, one, A, of the building subject to the two one, A, of the building subject to the 2 to respect commentary privilege.

I would say in this case, as I say, Parliament has to comply with employment legislation. The only issue that is raised is the power of entry, not applying for the Parliamentary estate, and you could understand a little bit white we might want to make sure that the Parliamentary Estate will secure from the challenge, but there is properly another place that the noble Lady could raise her concerns about employment in the Parliamentary estate. I have some sympathy with some of the cases she argued about.

Going to the House argued about. Going to the House authorities about it. Therefore I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
20:52
20:54
20:54
None Portrait Amendment:279ZZB Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-

To -- I arrives to speak to these amendments.. Starting with the first amendments.. Starting with the first one, we support the principle that workers must receive their full entitlement to holiday pay. And that those rights must be enforceable. those rights must be enforceable. However we think achieving that goal in practice, thickly under the new framework set out in this bill requires us to be clear about the real-world challenges that many businesses face. Holiday pay is one of the most complex areas of employment law.

It's only become more so following the changes introduced in January this year. Whilst some employers do seek to avoid their obligations and should be sanctioned the reality is that many more are simply trying to navigate legal framework that is very confusing, technical and still evolving. For small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, compliance is not always a question of willingness but of capacity and clarity. And that is why this amendment is timely and proportionate. It only asks the Secretary of State undertaken impact assessment to consider how businesses and particularly SMEs are coping with the new enforcement provisions.

It would require an evaluation of the practical administrative and financial implications of compliance, and whether any barriers have emerged during a presentation. Crucially this is not about weakening enforcement, it is quite the opposite, it's about enjoying the Fair Work Agency which we hope will become a cornerstone of enforcement under this bill is properly resourced, modernised and equipped to support both workers and employers in meeting their obligations. Turning to amendment 305, this government has managed to get unemployment to hit its highest pandemic, 4.6%, according to the most recent onus figures.

This is not a figure that we can shrug off because behind it is of course our real lives, will households and will businesses facing uncertainty. The same time the business environment is under considerable recent changes to national insurance contributions. Lawyers two extremely difficult decisions. The employer rate has risen from 13.8 to 15% and the threshold has been lowered, placing even greater pressure on payrolls. Research from S&W has shown around third of UK business owners are still planning job cuts as a direct result of these changes.

Many have begun reducing headcount, others are cutting hours, freezing pay or raising prices. Moves that will impact both employers and consumers. The question has to be asked, how will this legislation affect employment in that context? I should have mentioned that May showed very have mentioned that May showed very significant drop in payroll numbers. It is easier to sit in Westminster and write these rules, it is harder to understand how these rules will play out in terms and factories. In small businesses in hospitality, logistics, and across the many sectors that make up our labour market and that is why this amendment is vital.

Amendment 37, the British Retail Consortium has warned of potential High Street bloodbath with one in 10 retail jobs at risk over the next three years. If the Bills measures are promoted without careful consideration. Retailers are grappling with rising costs and squeezed margins and these additional employment burdens could accelerate job losses in an industry vital to our economy. I forget the precise number but I believe it's 180,000 jobs at risk according to 180,000 jobs at risk according to the BRC through to 2028.

Similarly the Institute of directors has published stock findings showing that nearly 3/4 of its members have 70 Similarly the Institute of directors has published stock findings showing that nearly 3/4 of its members have 72% believe it will dampen economic growth. 49% of business leaders stay they plan to reduce hiring, 36% intend to outsource all roles. Over half, 52%, anticipate investing further in automation as a response. These figures paint a clear picture, employers are preparing to scale back on job creation and are likely to replace human roles with technology and response to rising costs and compliance demands.

The Federation of Small Businesses echoes these concerns, SMEs in the back of the UK economy yet many are telling us that curative impact of new regulations, increased national insurance contributions and rising wage. Causing them to reconsider recruitment plans for reduce existing staff. The FSB has called for a more balanced approach the safeguards workers rights without stifling the businesses that create those jobs and growth. Can the Minister name a single business that expects to increase hiring because of the measures in this bill? On amendment 306, what a value.

At a time when the government should be prioritising opportunities for young people entering the workforce, the figures are concerning. Between January and March 2025 there were an estimated 354,000 young people aged between 16 and 24 who were not in education, employment or training. It is up by 21,000 compared to the same period last year. The government will no doubt argue the provisions in the bill such as the right to guaranteed hours and changes to Statutory Sick Pay are designed to protect vulnerable workers, many of whom are young and maybe on the margins of employment.

However, the reality is more complex. While well-intentioned these changes make it more costly and completed for employers to hire young people, who often lack the experience and are seeking flexible or part-time work to get started in their careers. The burden of additional costs and rigidities can discourage employers from offering entry-level roles or friendships, exactly the opportunities that young people desperate need to develop skills that build work histories. On amendment 308 and 309 return to a specific sector in the UK, manufacturing.

In the north-west Manhattan is not only a significant contributor to the regional economy, it is a vital source of skilled employment and innovation. Many manufacturers are actively seeking to invest in advanced technologies including artificial intelligence and automation. To improve productivity and remain competitive on the global stage. These ambitions risk being undermined by the additional costs and compliance burdens imposed by this bill. Manufacturers are already grappling with the challenges of global tariffs, supply chain disruptions and inflationary pressures. Adding further regulatory and financial strength threatens to hollow out this sector.

If the increased labour market enforcement and associated costs become too great there is a risk manufacturers will reduce investment, scale back hiring or The knock-on effect on regions depending on manufacturing would be severe. Fitting jobs, skill severe. Fitting jobs, skill While the objective of this bill to protect workers rights and promote fair employment practices are indeed laudable, we must ensure that they
21:01
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

do not come at the expense of vital industries and communities, effectively.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And propose, after clause 146, insert the new clause, the words
21:01
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

These These amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These amendments collectively identify the critical importance of supporting small and medium-sized enterprises as they adapt to the changes produced by the bill. We changes produced by the bill. We have raised this issue repeatedly, night after night, in other parts of the legislation. It all comes back to small businesses. Small businesses, concerned about the businesses, concerned about the future. I really think there is a chance in the small debate where we actually get to talk about the challenges, especially around like challenges, especially around like holidays.

Compliance can be complex, although I do not fully agree with this doom and gloom scenario of this part of the bill. Recent data shows the SMEs employ about 60% -- 16% of the workforce --. The amendment proposed a 279 would place the Secretary of State to see whether they can meet those obligations and to identify practical barriers that they face. Would be important to ensure it is not a disadvantage. The very businesses that formed the backbone of our economy.

Tracking how the implementation and how that is impacting on the economy can be is impacting on the economy can be vital. I briefly turned to the cause 305... To examine the acts on implement youth opportunities and labour markets. The North West of labour markets. The North West of England where the industrial revolution, trying to embrace AI. We are trying to become a groundbreaking again. Other establishments. It doesn't really affect the regional labour markets. I'm concerned as we are still recovering from the economic shocks.

Bringing assessment would help us get a clearer picture of this legislation and how it affects businesses and workers. While they are cautious in their approach they do reflect a genuine concern the implementation must be likeable. The SMEs, without stifling growth. And so, as we move forward, I look forward to the Minister's view on these amendments. I would appreciate some remarks about the government physically supporting SMEs throughout these changes. And their intended consequences. At the heart of this. We can have the policies and you can develop the policies, what business or asking me is what are they going to do.

What do we see that helps me to embrace this legislation. To take people on to train them and employ people, as opposed to the burdens against that, which is unintended consequence of trying to do the right thing, the employment rights. It is a fine line. We are politicians, we understand it is clearer than a small company, they are concerned that something is going to overwhelm them, something they can't control. I want the Minister to somehow explain to me and members of my group especially, what the practical things are going to be put in place, to give those a small businesses confidence to embrace and work with you to make a employees or more secure, safe with better rights.

On the other hand of small and medium- sized companies, multi-million companies. They can carry on creating the jobs in the local economy and lifting us out of the doom and gloom where we've been before. We have done it before, we can do it again. Sometimes it is just a question that needs answering. Whether you can do it tonight, we need some clarity. We will be meeting other people. This isn't just me grandstanding, this is a small businesses same to me.

Just ask the government what they are doing and how they can help us. I think that's what I'm trying to clumsily say as we draw to a close this evening. If the Minister could give me some hope that what we are doing, what we have put in place will actually help small businesses and medium businesses be satisfied.
21:06
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-

Here we go again on the impact assessment. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if some of my notes repeat themselves in previous debates. I will answer some of the points here. Firstly I thank the noble Lord sharp and Lord Hunt Lord Goddard for the matters relating to impact assessments. May I refer to Lord Goddard's point about what the government doing as far as SMEs are concerned. I have just recently been deployed, for the Department of business and trade and the communications regularly, with micro businesses and small businesses, that's what I'll be focusing on.

Today itself, we are disappointed, the SME, or business Commissioner will start work shortly on tackling payments and also some of the abuses that small businesses experience, from companies not paying them on time. At the same time, we will be publishing a small business strategy, very, very soon. Also at the same time will be publishing our industrial and stray strategy very soon as well stop sometime this we got there about. We are doing a lot of work, not only myself, but the Secretary of State, Baroness Jones and the Ministers in the department.

We have regular contacts across the business community itself. We have had extensive debate already on impact assessments related to this bill. My commitment in an earlier debate, to meet noble Lords to discuss impact assessments further still stands. The governance has published impact assessments on the best available evidence on the workers are likely to be affected by these measures. This includes an assessment on the economic impacts of the bill, including impact on workers, business sectors and regions.

This package shows that there is clear evidence based benefits from tackling issues holding back the UK labour market. This analysis is based on the best available evidence and consultation with external experts and stakeholders including academics and think tanks. Further analysis will also be forthcoming both in the form of an impact assessment, when the bill secures Royal Assent and when we consult the proposed regulations to meet better requirements. Before I conclude, let me share, with noble Lords and some really startling statistics here.

We already know that healthier and happier workers are more productive workers. The health and safety Executive estimate that stress, impression, or anxiety accounted for something like 70.1 million working days are lost in 2022, 2023. Which is the equivalent to a loss of something close to £5.3 billion, in output per year. In addition, something close to 2 million employees report feeling anxious about hours worked, or shifts changing unexpectedly. By increasing the job security of these workers, this bill will have benefits worth billions of pounds a year.

So My Lords this bill will therefore create a healthier and happier workforce which is not only the right thing to do, but will help businesses by making their workers more productive as well as resulting in lower treatment cost on the NHS. The noble Lord sharp asked me a question earlier. What have we done since getting elected to support growth? In fact I am proud to share this with my noble Lord. We have created 500 or more, 500,000 more people are in work than in recent weeks we have had the Strategic Defence Review, with 30,000 new jobs being created, building submarines.

And the announcement of the project that will create something like 10,000 new jobs. We are creating a new jobs, My Lords. In addition. We have people who are investing in this country, having confidence in this government. Let me share with you, Jamie Diamond, Morgan Chase. They've always believed there is business to be done in the UK. There is much to like about the government's new growth agenda. President of Blackstone, one of the largest private equity companies in the world invested something close to £100 billion in the UK, employing something like 50,000 people.

He told the Times a couple of weeks ago, "I would give the UK Government a lot of credit for embracing business. " This is not with the government is saying, this is what people with money who are investing in this country are saying to us. Every day, every single day, £200 million is being invested in this country, tech companies. I do not call that small sums, I call that confidence in the UK Government and what we're doing. So in addition to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that, I therefore ask noble Lord sharp to withdraw. I've listened very carefully to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've listened very carefully to the wonderfully racy picture of the UK economy. The most recent UK economy. The most recent employment statistics show an employment statistics show an increase in unemployment. It doesn't reconcile what the noble Lord is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reconcile what the noble Lord is trying to convince this is the case. I think the noble Baroness for that. Every month the figures go that. Every month the figures go out. Let's look at it from a longer term. We are creating new jobs. That term. We are creating new jobs. That is what is really important. I therefore conclude and ask the noble Lord sharp to withdraw amendment 279 Lord sharp to withdraw amendment 279 And grateful for his passionate defence of his government and his remarks was that I'm genuinely delighted that he's taken on a new delighted that he's taken on a new role, unlike the vast majority of his government he knows what he's talking about when it comes to small business.

We are very pleased to business. We are very pleased to hear that and we welcome his general remarks. But I also say I agree with Jamie Diamond about the growth agenda. The fact is this bill will agenda. The fact is this bill will not help the growth of the agenda. I'm grateful to Lord Goddard as well. He accused me of being a due me and gloomy. I have to say I did not get those statistics from thin air. They were referenced and if you would like I will happily put them in touch with them.

The fact is that once again, the level of the Minister could not rise to the challenge of naming a single business expects to increase hiring because of measures in this bill. In references to the Strategic Defence Review really do not help the argument. The other reason why I'm full of doom is I came across this notice in a window in London. After much reflection and as a result of the substantial business rate and national insurance cost increases imposed on us, in this year's budget we have made the difficult decision to close.

Our final day of service will be 28 June 2025. That is a real business, that is going out of business. I think that is The government impact assessment on this bill, as we have debated a number of times, I know it irritates the noble Lord every time I bring it up. It is simply inadequate. There is not enough detail, rigorous analysis to understand how these enforcement measures that will affect employment across this country. Without that we are walking blindly into serious economic risks. At this rate, the bill proceeds without the necessary amendments and safeguards it won't just fall short, it will create unemployment, My Lords.

The additional burdens, on employers, especially small and medium-sized businesses and crucial sectors like manufacturing threat to reduce hiring a small investment and ultimately cost jobs. This is not speculation My Lords it is happening. As my noble friend Baroness Noakes pointed out, it is clear and present danger based on the evidence we've seen and the trend is unlikely to diminish. We support workers rights, but not at the expense of widespread job losses and economic harm. The Government has provided proper thorough impact assessment I honestly addresses these risks, before we proceed further.

I'm grateful for the offer of a meeting to discuss this, but I'm not sure what there is to discuss without the impact assessment or the commitment to hold
21:15
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-

it as soon as possible. If this doesn't happen the bill will fail workers and employers that we will face the consequences of higher unemployment as a result. That is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something no one wants. Withdraw the amendment? Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn? The amendment is withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. 279 amendment is by leave withdrawn. 279 as a day, not moved. The question is that schedule 10 B the 10th schedule that schedule 10 B the 10th schedule of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Schedule 11, contents have it. Schedule 11, Amendment two has 79 a and B Baroness Jones of Whitchurch move Baroness Jones of Whitchurch move formally.

The question is these amendments be agreed. As many as are amendments be agreed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is contents have it. The question is that schedule 11, be the schedule of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Clause 147 stand contents have it. Clause 147 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content".

The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In clause 148 contents have it. In clause 148 amendments at 279C2279 148 amendments at 279C2279G, Baroness Jones and move formally. The question is at these amendments be agreed? As many as are of that agreed? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is contents have it. The question is that clause 1 hope for eight as amended be added to the bill. The contents have it.

149, Baroness contents have it. 149, Baroness
21:17
None Portrait Amendment:279GA Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-

Coffey, GZA. 279 270 9GZA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arrives to speak to them at 279 AGA which introduces a subset clause to ensure that the extension of time limits, for bringing employment is a limits, for bringing employment is a subject to periodic Parliamentary oversight. I also speak to amendments 33 I also speak to amendments 33 I also speak to amendments 330Z a, 330D and 334, amendments 330Z a, 330D and 334, 330D and 334D in my name. I have tabled these amendments, with my friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, because I believe that the state of the I believe that the state of the employment tribunal system is a deeply concerning and urgently deeply concerning and urgently The range of bill before us The range of bill before us The range of bill before us introduces the claim to claim unfair dismissal from day one of employment.

We must confront the uncomfortable truth that the current uncomfortable truth that the current tribunal system is simply not prepared to handle the additional burden that this bill will place upon it. Indeed, we have heard from a respected law firm that there is a broad consensus among legal professionals that the claimant tribunal system is in their words "the biggest problem in the legal world " -- the employment tribunal system. The government's own impact assessment suggests that tribunal cases will increase by around 15% as a result of these reforms.

Yet I must ask, how has this figure been calculated? Given the scale of the backlog we are currently witnessing, can this be anything other than a gross underestimate? The reality is that by extending the time limits, within which individuals can bring claims, the bill itself may actively incentivise an increase in the volume of cases. If people have more time to bring claims, it's natural more claims will be submitted. more claims will be submitted.

Claims that must learn be processed under a system that is already growing under enormous pressure. To put this in perspective, we are currently facing unemployment tribunal backlog of nearly 50,000 cases. This backlog has now reached record levels, with preliminary hearings being scheduled as far away as April next year, 2026, and full hearings not likely to take place into one into 2027. This must be a crisis, the late of this magnitude means that justice for money is effectively denied.

When someone has to wait years, years, for the case to be heard, the protection that the law is supposed to afford becomes little more than an empty promise. The courses of this backlog are clear. There is an acute shortage of employment judges. There is insufficient funding. There is inadequate administrative support. And although the government has pledged to recruit hundreds of new judges, the practicalities of ensuring that those judges have the necessary expertise and that adequate administrative support is in place, remain significant challenges.

But swear I believe these amendments are so vital. -- That is why I believe. They don't seek to block or delay the important workers rights but instead insist on responsible measured implementation. It is essential that before these new rights, into force, an independent and thorough assessment is conducted to evaluate the capacity and effectiveness of the tribunal system. This assessment has to address current delays, judge numbers, funding, and the likely impact of this bill's provisions on tribunal caseloads.

Moreover, the government must commit to implementing all necessary measures identified in this assessment, to reduce the backlog to a manageable level. Specifically, to fewer than 10,000 outstanding claims. Only then should this rights be activated. So this is all about ensuring that when workers exercise their rights, they have access to a tribunal system capable of delivering timely, fair justice. Additionally, the amendment regarding the extension of time limits for claims rightly insists this measure cannot come into effect until the senior president of tribunal's certifies that the system can handle the expected increase in cases without further lengthening hearing times.

Without such a safeguard, we risk compounding the problem. And turning an already overstretched system into something unworkable. There is another important point I must raise. Nowhere in the government's impact assessment is there any explanation for why the option of introducing a right to claim unfair dismissal between day one and two years was not considered. If the intention is truly to balance the employment relationship and provide fair protections, why do we have to leap today one? -- To day one.

This is not just illegal technicality. It carries real risks. One such risk is the incentive could creates for employers to hire the disincentive it creates, the... Those who may be perceived as risky or those with a history of mental health challenges, younger workers or others. By exposing employers to potential unfair dismissal claims from the very first day, this bill may inadvertently make it even harder for these vulnerable groups to find work in the first place.

This would be a tragic and unintended consequences compounding and security rather than alleviating it. Finally we have debated at length the vast powers of the new Fair Work Agency, its funding and the role it might play. However, many questions remain. Will the Fair Work Agency, with undefined enforcement officers and anti-operational framework, generally take on the enforcement of workers rights in a way that meaningfully reduces the burden on the already overstretched employment tribunal? Or will tribunal to continue to bear the brunt of this increased workload? Without adequate support orally.

I now look to the government to provide this House, workers, businesses, law firms and no doubt the tribunal's, with some assurance, clarity, and ideally a timeline for the day one rights provisions in this bill. Perhaps this is the moment when the noble Baroness the Minister will at last share with us, at least in draft, the implementation plan that we have heard so much about during the course of this committee stage, and will she please undertake to ensure that we have that plan, that implementation plan, before we reach
21:27
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

reports stage. I beg to move. Clause 149, page 147, insert as
21:27
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed in the marshalled list. I would like to see a few words in support of this amendment for a in support of this amendment for a Sunset clause, amendment 279, J. While I perfectly understand the reason for extending the period to make claims, it will, I'm quite sure, increase the burden on the tribunal's. We have heard about the very long delay even in a preliminary hearing, not until April 2026, and these delays have continued really fulsome years. People going to tribunal for a preliminary hearing are sometimes given more than 18 months just to have the luminary hearing.

-- The luminary hearing. If numbers increase, as they are likely to, it is going to put far more pressure on the tribunal's, and I do think the Parliamentary oversight proposed and that Sunset clause will take account, they must take account, of the pressure on the tribunal's. There really is no point, not only is there no point in law and having a claim not heard for years now, and settled, but it is very, very bad for business to have the uncertainties, it is very bad for employees and their lives, to be subject to such delays and uncertainties in what is going to happen professionally because taking a claim to tribunal is not an easy matter.

It can be expensive, it can be full of obstacles. And it's very worrying for people who are going to go ahead and how it will pan out. But for business subject to constant of claims in a tribunal, whether they are justified or not, brings insecurity and a lack of confidence. And for these reasons, I think this
21:30
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
very moderate request for a sunset and for coming back to Parliament for an affirmative vote, are a very good proposal, and I hope the government will listen kindly to it. government will listen kindly to it. I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord Hunt for introducing these Lord Hunt for introducing these amendments. I should also say to the amendments. I should also say to the noble Lord that the problems that he has described so vividly we inherited from the previous government.

And we arguably aware of the need that these issues need to the need that these issues need to be addressed. And of course I share his desire to ensure that the employment tribunal system can employment tribunal system can manage its existing case law and the manage its existing case law and the potential increase from the bill's measures and I want to reassure your Lordship's House that we are working Lordship's House that we are working across government and with business and the unions to defy ways to improve a system that we inherited that is not working currently for that is not working currently for anyone.

We are already recruiting more judges, more legal caseworkers, more judges, more legal caseworkers, and providing additional resources to ACAS. On top of that we are to ACAS. On top of that we are considering other things such as the role of the expanded Fair Work Agency which could play, the role it could play which would reduce the cost of costly and lengthy, sorry, reduce the time of writing costly and lengthy tribunal claims -- away to. I would be happy to hear any constructive suggestions from the noble Lords but it would be disproportionate to make the vital improvements to workers rights contained in the bill dependent on the kind of review that the amendments proposed.

It would be wrong to take the workers rights to challenge, workers rights to challenge unfair practices away from them when they are not to blame for the backlog we are currently the backlog we are currently It would be disproportionate to delay the time to bring in a flowing tribunal, given this is in the government's committees to Make Work Pay, commissioning a long-standing certification of the system. The Law Commission consulted extensively on extending time limits to six months, and I would say to Noble Lords feedback from the consultation and wide experience show that three months is no longer a realistic amount of time the many people to prepare and fund a robust claim.

Whilst I've heard the concerns that increasing time limits may increase the number of claims, the counterargument is it will allow more time for parties to access advice and increase the chances of resolving matters without need for costly and stressful litigation. Must also recognise it's not simply a matter of the number of claims but their quality and the amount of additional time and resource required from the judiciary to get cases in a state where they can be determined. Delaying this measure would be counter to the aim of ensuring parties have more time to seek advice and support to prepare higher quality claims.

Extending time limits will simplify and standardise the time limit for submitting a claim to the employment tribunal across the majority of complaints, making the system more consistent the claimants and employers. The Noble Lord is also seeking to add a Sunset clause to his measure which would undermine as he well knows the policy intent. I can however reassure the Noble Lord that it is our intention that the implementation plan, which we all share the arrival of, will be made available shortly.

I would like to reassure your Lordship's House that the government will closely monitor the impact of extending time limits on the employment tribunal system. We intend to conduct a post and protection plan of the bill within five years of implantation. This will provide enough time to assess the policies effectiveness and gather sufficient data for evaluation purposes, meaning this amendment is unnecessary. I therefore ask the Noble Lord Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hunt to withdraw amendment 2 7IG. Before she sits down, may I ask

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before she sits down, may I ask how many... The noble Lady made a reference to the number... The government was busily recruiting judges. So as to help the backlog, judges. So as to help the backlog, and this is part of the government's and this is part of the government's response. But of the 35,000 extra response. But of the 35,000 extra civil servants recruited since March March 2024, and these are the March March 2024, and these are the March 2025 figures, could the noble Lady the Minister tell me how many of the Minister tell me how many of those are judges and how many of them will be in the employment them will be in the employment tribunal service? And I don't expect tribunal service? And I don't expect the Minister to have the figures to hand, but I'd be very pleased if you could write to me.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

could write to me. 15 new fee paid employment were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

15 new fee paid employment were appointed -- 50 in 24/25, and a further three recruitment exercises further three recruitment exercises to further increase capacity are now being undertaken in 2025/26.
21:34
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Well I am very grateful to my Noble Friend Baroness Lawlor for putting all this in context. The security or insecurity of workers right across the board faced with this terrible backlog. Now the noble Baroness the Minister paraded me for the last government's culpability in this, but she will know that we have been expressing serious concern about this backlog for a very very long time. And the fact is that it's now got worse.

It's 20% up on what it was when this government came in to office last year. So my plea to the noble Baroness the Minister is, all right, you are quite right in saying there was a backlog, but please, like my plea is pleased to make it worse. And as we draw this debate to a close, I really worry that the government has not really fully grasped the critical importance of these amendments for us. They are not obstacles to progress.

They are necessary safeguards to ensure that the rights we are creating are not rendered ineffective by an overwhelmed tribunal system. We urgently need clarity on the implementation plans. I looked up whilst the noble Baroness the Minister was promising that we would have the implementation plan shortly. And the definition of shortly is within the next hour or so. In the dictionary, we are told shortly means it's about to happen. So where is it? I would like to believe that her reference to the word, which he must've carefully considered, shortly, does mean that tomorrow we are going to get it.

And I'm very happy for her to interrupt me if I have incorrectly... Perhaps she could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clarify. Abstract to be helpful actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Abstract to be helpful actually to the Noble Lord, but since he provokes me, I would simply say shortly is my interpretation of shortly rather than the dictionary shortly rather than the dictionary definition. It won't be happening in the next hour, I can assure the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the next hour, I can assure the noble Lord of that. Could I possibly have a copy of the noble Baronesses dictionary? Because she has just quoted from her dictionary, but sadly I don't have dictionary, but sadly I don't have that dictionary to hand. But I do that dictionary to hand. But I do feel that it is necessary as they give way to the noble Baroness... We give way to the noble Baroness... We all would like to see it. I think on all sides of the House, we would all all sides of the House, we would all like to see it, so please can we see it if possible before the next day in committee next Tuesday? I just think that there are all sorts of think that there are all sorts of issues that we have just discussed.

We have not been answered. Why a We have not been answered. Why a measured approach between day one and two years? Was it ever seriously and two years? Was it ever seriously considered? There has been no answer from the noble Baroness on that. Did you look at that or did you move straight to day one? This gap in reasoning leaves many efforts deeply worried about the unintended consequences for both workers and employers alike. Regrettably, these are crucial issues which remain unresolved, and the government has yet to provide the assurances we need, and I just say that as we approach the report stage, we are going to have to return to this matter with a determination to secure the clarity and commitments that are so essential if this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is ever going to be successful. Does the Noble Lord wish to
21:39
21:40
None Portrait Amendment:Clause 149 Stand Part. Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-

final stages of the bill. But can I just say very briefly, with respect
21:40
21:40
None Portrait Amendment:Clause 149 Stand Part. Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-

the Minister to write to elucidate the remarks that she and her colleagues have made in the course colleagues have made in the course of the committee's proceedings. We are watching that because we are are watching that because we are making sure we do get replies. If we don't get proper replies, we will raise those issues at report stage. So I do hope very gently that the So I do hope very gently that the Minister is aware that of course we understand that information is not understand that information is not always at her disposal or her colleagues disposal, but we will need that information in order for need that information in order for us to make an informed decision at us to make an informed decision at report stage.

If the House divides at that juncture. The second issue of course, that I think is appropriate to raise, raised several committees ago by my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey is about impact assessments, the office guideline so the impact assessment guide should be adapted as the bill goes through and I'm not sure that has gone through, and am not sure the Minister has satisfactorily answered the issue Baroness Coffey has raised earlier. With that in mind, I think that the rationale that the noble lady the Minister used the extension from three to six months was not even tepid, not even a week.

It was just non-existent. To say that Law Commission have done a consultation, I don't think cuts the mustard. We on this side of the House do believe firmly that extending the period will bring more answer to the business, for be more costly, encourage more litigation and workplace strife and will be a force make a false economy. And I do, look over to the opposition benches, and I see the pawprints of the trade unions in this. I don't know why they would want to do this, but like so much of the bill, they are seemingly pulling the strings.

And I think in the end, it will not be in the best interest of workers for this to happen. Not least because as my Noble Friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has said, the system is creaking, and it's no good saying it was creaking under you. This covenant has been in power 12 months now. It's incumbent upon them to fix the system. With their legislation. And I think that this is a retrograde step. It won't work. It will backfire. And on that basis, I would move the amendment that clause 149 does not stand part of the bill.

And
21:42
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-

equally, schedule 12.
21:42
21:43
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
First thing I would say to the Noble Lord Lord Jackson, if we say we are going to write, we will write. We don't need to be told that this is being monitored in some way. And I would say that on these benches, I feel that we have been over -- bent over backwards to engage with Noble Lords, not only obviously in debates but outside of this by having meetings and trying to work through some of these issues in more detail, and so I do resent the fact that the accusation that we are somehow hiding from accountability on these issues.

We are bending over backwards to be accountable. I would also say to the Noble Lord Lord Jackson that we have updated the impact assessment and written to the nobility Baroness Coffey about it already. As Noble Lords have said, we've debated this issue now quite extensively. We would argue that the proposals we are putting forward will not only benefit employees but they will benefit employers by increasing the time within which workplace procedures and conciliation can be completed, creating an opportunity for more disputes to be resolved without the need for litigation.

Current ACAS performance data shows that around 1/3 of early conciliation notifications go on to submit an employment tribunal claim. Therefore the longer period of time for resolving disputes... Therefore the longer period of time for resolving disputes internally and/or via conciliation or signify the time limits for making employment tribunal claims and improve access to justice. But affair the arguments the Noble Lord Lord Jackson, as I say we've debated this now extensively, but I can assure your Lordship's House that this clause and schedule are essential for those who need to bring a claim to a tribunal in order to have an adequate time to prepare a robust claim, to therefore ask it stands
21:45
21:47
None Portrait Amendment:280 Baroness Penn (Conservative)
-

workers in the UK, including around 120,000 official drivers at the Brits and delivery, two of the largest delivery companies in the largest delivery companies in the country. For years we have heard country. For years we have heard stories of labour market fraud and these are abuse committed by contractors related to those companies and much of that abuse has companies and much of that abuse has come through the use of the legal loophole created by substitution loophole created by substitution clauses. These clauses have traditionally been used to give flexibility to businesses, but in the gig economy there being used to the gig economy there being used to allow for illegal working.

From late 2018 to early 2019 there were 14,000 fraudulent journeys according to Transport for London. During random checks two years ago the Home Office found that two in five delivery drivers who were stopped were working illegally. I do acknowledge that there is some action that is being taken that will address part of this issue. Ministers have said that they will consult on employment status and moving towards a two-part legal framework that identifies people who genuinely self-employed. I support that ambition but as someone who worked on the original proposals in this area that stemmed from the Taylor Review I also understand the complexity of resolving this and I fear it could end up being put in the two difficult pile of ministers in trays.

The government has also brought forward amendment to the Borders and immigration bill to include a legal requirement for organisations to carry out rights work checks on individuals they employ under a workers contract as individual subcontractors and for online matching services that provide details of service providers to potential clients or customers for remuneration. Could I ask the Minister what the timescales are for the consultation and secondary legislation to bring those measures into force? But my understanding these provisions won't extend to the use of substitutes meaning this loophole remain.

Amendment 286 to go some way to addressing this through the introduction of a conference of register of all dependent contractors stop such transparency would help ensure that employment rights are upheld and pay is not suppressed through a legitimate competition and will also support the legitimacy of right to work checks was an alternative approach would be to Dan -- band the clauses altogether released those sectors where abuse is most prevalent. Russell Barclays amendment 323E6 to do in a later group, restrict their improper use.

Given that substitution clauses have paid an important part in case law or determining employee or worker status this could have broad implications. I focused on transparency as a first step. I would be interested to hear the Minister's view on removing all -- restricting use of substitution clauses and whether it is preferable to a register delivering transparency. A further alternative would be to introduce right to work checks for substitutes by the original engagement of business will top whilst this was deemed to be obscure scope for the bill in the Commons I'd hoped the government's amendment to the Borders bill would fill this gap.

Unless I have misunderstood and I be grateful if the Minister could clarify for me, their approach I think leaves this loophole untouched. The impact for the government's amendment to the Borders and immigration Bill reflects the harms the legal working has to our economy and I quote, illegal working creates unfair competition negatively impacts legitimate businesses and puts additional pressure on public services. Rapid growth has been observed in UK modern labour market models where businesses can currently engage workers without the requirement to complete right to work checks.

Without further action to address the abuse of substitution clauses as the app drivers and careers union have said, unfortunately there is a loophole that allows some bad people to come through full stop they are not vetted and so could do anything. The government needs to take action to guarantee fairness and justice in our labour market and a register of dependent contractors provides a way to resolve this particular abuse and hold big employers in the big, gig
21:51
21:51
21:52
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-

Firstly may I thank Baroness Penn for her amendment 280 and also I'd like to thank her for meeting with Baroness Jones and me last month to discuss this very important issue. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the government is already taking action to tackle the risks that arise from substitution including illegal working and as mentioned earlier, substitution is a very complex area in which we are still gathering data. The recent ONS online survey of around 10,000 businesses from across the UK was just published this month, found that something like close to three% of UK businesses used substitution clauses.

We don't know the number of substitution clauses used in the gig economy, this could impact a large number of individuals. All the estimates for the number of gig economy workers do vary vastly from various surveys done so far, something from 500,000 to 4.4 million people, the noble Baroness mentioned something like 4.7 million people. The CIPD found that roughly 75% of those in the gig economy instead of themselves to be self- employed. We have introduced an amendment in the border security asylum immigration bill as mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness to extend the scope of employers required to carry out rights to work checks.

Those who are engaged limb be workers or individual some -- subcontractors such as those working in the gig economy this requirement covers those working as substitutes. The we understand the competitive these issues and employment status more widely and this is why we are committed to consult in detail on a simpler framework for employment status. Comprehensive consultation will better count for full range of today's employment relationship while also addressing the minority of employers who will seek to avoid legal obligation.

We were clear that some reforms in our Plan to Make Work Pay will take longer to undertake and implement. We do not have a set timeline for consulting on employment status at this point and I will assure the noble Baroness that we will keep up-to-date as and when this happens. We understand the complexity of employment status as mentioned earlier, we are definitely committed to consult in detail and comprehensive consultation better account for full range of today's employment relationship while also addressing the minority of employers who seek to avoid legal obligations.

I just mentioned earlier. The noble Ladies amendments would create significant additional reporting significant additional reporting burdens for businesses and would not necessarily change how this businesses used substitution clauses as I mentioned in my earlier speech. I therefore asked the noble Baroness to withdraw amendment 280.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Minister sits down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Minister sits down could I reconfirm what I think I heard which is that the amendments to the Borders and immigration Bill will cover the use of substitute will cover the use of substitute workers and substitute clauses with the extension of rights to work checks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

checks. Let me go back and clarify, the amendment to the border security and amendment to the border security and asylum immigration bill to extend the scope of employers required to the scope of employers required to carry out rights work checks to those who are engaged with NIMBY workers perhaps classified that as workers perhaps classified that as those without much rights to individual subcontractors such as those working in the gig economy. Perhaps that answers the noble Baronesses question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baronesses question. Not there for the use of substitute workers, OK. That does answer my question, but it does answer my question, but it does leave the issue unaddressed as it leave the issue unaddressed as it were. I think the challenge that is before the government is it has acknowledged the existence of this problem with amendments brought to the Borders and immigration Bill at the Borders and immigration Bill at report stage. But it proposes to leave this loophole unaddressed.

The powers they are bringing in that bill will require further consultation and then secondary legislation and the noble Lord wasn't able to put a timeline on that. It is not addressed in those proposals in that bill does... Then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when will it be addressed? The noble Lord want to... I thank the noble Baroness Bull

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness Bull giving way, I need to stand corrected on that point an official

**** Possible New Speaker ****

corrected on that point an official has given me a note that it does cover substitute workers. OK. Perhaps what it might be good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Perhaps what it might be good to do is between now and report sit down and clarify the exact proposed powers that are through that bill because if it does although the because if it does although the powers then therefore for secondary and the details you work through, if and the details you work through, if the government is taking the powers to address this loophole and can do it through secondary legislation in that bill I think that is welcome news and transparency measures proposed in my approach was really proposed in my approach was really an interim measure due to scope in other wide considerations were if we other wide considerations were if we can directly place the obligation to carry out rights work checks on carry out rights work checks on those organisations engaging people and their substitutes then that and their substitutes then that
21:58
22:00
None Portrait Amendment:299 Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak also to amendment 300. As noble Lords know this is the final group and I must say I am very flattered that so many noble Lords flattered that so many noble Lords on the benches opposite have stayed to hear the final group of to hear the final group of amendments. The inspiration for these amendments is the Social Security advisory committee which has been in existence for over 40 has been in existence for over 40 years and has established itself as an impartial and expectant in a highly complex area surrounding our highly complex area surrounding our benefit system.

Much of the benefits legislation is set out at secondary legislation is set out at secondary legislation. It's an area marked by legislation. It's an area marked by highly complex law which has very important real-world effects for the important real-world effects for the people affected by the secondary legislation. If the Department for Social Security get them wrong then Social Security get them wrong then people can suffer genuine detriment. The SFA see has been an important underpinning to the Parliamentary underpinning to the Parliamentary approval of these very complex social security secondary legislation and it gives legislation and it gives parliamentary accountability some real substance, it is that parliamentary accountability that is the key driver of these two Now we know that this bill creates a lot of secondary legislation in order to implement it, and I'm sure there will be a big flurry of initial secondary legislation shortly after the bill gets Royal assent.

And indeed I will say again, we eagerly await the imputation plan, which should give us some idea of the time in sequencing of all of that. But the story will not end there because these powers will doubtless be used to amend the legislation over time. As anticipated events arise leading to the need for further rounds of secondary legislation. The secondary legislation is clearly different in kind from social security legislation, but it does have very real impacts, both on the rights of workers and of the organisations that they employ, and through them, onto the economy.

So it has very significant impacts throughout the economy. And it's difficult to overstate the widespread nature of the impact the secondary legislation under this bill will have. And I'm sure it will be very complex. We look at the delegated powers memorandum. It is a very long memorandum. If we just take one example of the new writer guaranteed hours in clause 1, that requires 17 new items of secondary legislation alone. So this is going to be a big undertaking.

So my amendment seeks to establish a new employment law advisory committee, to mirror what the SSAC currently does the social security legislation. My amendment covers not only this bill but all relevant employment labour market legislation, which is defined in this bill. So that secondary legislation covering the whole of the labour market would be covered by it. Now under amendment 300, the Secretary of State would be required Secretary of State would be required to refer virtually all proposers of secondary legislation to the committee, and this mirrors what happens with the SSAC.

The committee would then consider the proposals and make a report to the Secretary of State with such recommendations as the committee thinks appropriate. Importantly, it's what happens next. The Secretary of State then lays the secondary legislation as he or she chooses, but the Secretary of State also has to lay a copy of the report from the advisory committee together with an explanation of how the recommendations have been dealt with or not is the case may be. Now this gives a richness to the parliamentary scrutiny of that secondary legislation which would simply not have without that detailed external analysis.

Amendment 2 99, my lead amendment sets out the composition of the committee. Which would be appointed the Secretary of State. The SSAC consists only of broadly expert in the subject area that is being covered. And I would have preferred that, but I constantly hear from the Frontbench opposite that the preferred model for the government is what I think the Minister calls the social contract way of working, which means having representatives from employers and workers embedded in the committee, and so that is what I have proposed in amendment 2 99.

With equal numbers of those representing employers, employees and independent people. Now there is an error in my amendment, for which I apologise. Subsection 3 of amendment 2 99 says that the Secretary of State may appoint a chairman from the category of membership which covers the interest of employers. Now believe it or not, that is not what I intended. I had intended to say that the chairman should be from neither the employer nor the employee camp but it should be from the independent camp.

So the reference to subsection two.B should in fact be the subsection two.C. My Lords, this bill already creates an advisory board for the Secretary of State, but... And that's in clause 90, but that only covers the Secretary of State's enforcement functions. And my amendment as I have tried to explain is very much broader than that and covering all secondary legislation. But importantly, the clause 90 advisory board operates behind closed doors. And the outside world, including Parliament which is my main concern here.

They have no idea what it does and what it advises. That's not the SSAC model, and it's not the model of my amendments to 99 and 300, which as I have stated have parliamentary accountability at its heart. My voice is about to go, which is just as well because I come
22:06
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

to this stage when I say I beg to move. Amendment proposed articles 150
22:06
22:07
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Well I thank my Noble Friend Baroness Noakes for so expertly introducing her amendment and did welcome the concretion of my Noble Friend Baroness Penn regarding the establishment of the employment law advisory committee. We believe her amendment would significantly strengthen the framework for effective and balanced labour market regulation. The creation of a dedicated advisory committee modelled on the Social Security Advisory Committee seems to as a prudent and timely measure. It will provide this active state with expert independent advice that draws from a diverse range of perspectives, employers, workers, independent experts alike.

This inclusive competition... Composition is vital to ensuring that any regulations developed under this act are well informed, fair and workable in practice. Moreover, the clear statutory function for the committee to scrutinise draft regulations before they are laid before Parliament introduces an important additional layer of oversight of It will help to ensure that regulations are carefully considered, the peaceful relevant stakeholders are considered, and the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the committee's report alongside any laid regulations, including an explanation when recommendations are not followed, enhances accountability and public confidence in the regulatory process.

In summer, we think these amendments represent a Lord Goddard of Stockport and constructive approach to policy-making in the complex area of employment law. They will help guide against -- guard against rational poorly considered regulations, support better policy regulations and uphold the pencils of consultation and transparency the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are essential to good governance -- that are essential to good governance. I thank the noble Baroness notes
22:09
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness notes for her amendment, 299 and 300. -- for her amendment, 299 and 300. -- Baroness Noakes. The governor is orally committed to consulting the detail of implementation, and we've also already undertaken extensive engagement with employers, business and worker representatives, trade unions and experts, and we will continue with this approach as we develop our secondary legislation. There are some specific instances, such as in the enforcement space where we are proposing standing up an expert group, upgrading enforcement of workers rights is an important but also complex task.

Where it is right to draw on expertise from businesses, workers and independent representatives. This is why the bill requires the Secretary of State to establish an advisory board. This board will play a critical role in providing advice and insight of the Secretary of State on the enforcement function under part five of the bill. Which will be used in practice to deliver through the Fair Work Agency. This is a proportionate and necessary step to help ensure the effectiveness of the Fair Work Agency.

But this isn't required across the bill. And wider labour market legislation as a whole. The committee proposed by the noble Lady Baroness Noakes would be a repetition of the planned engagement and consultation on the bill. Already, we've engaged with over 190 different stakeholder organisations on our Plan to Make Work Pay, including employers of all sizes, SMEs, large corporations, trade unions and representative organisations, representing thousands of businesses and millions of workers. We held round table discussions focused on particular topics such as zero hours contracts and with particular groups such as leaders of small businesses or retailers.

As the government we are committed to engage closely on our plans, and we will continue to do so. This engagement will continue throughout intimidation, including as we develop regulations under the bill. In terms of parliamentary scrutiny, the select committees will of course scrutinise the government proposals, and our reforms as they are rolled out. And I would say to the noble Lady the economic affairs committee had an enquiry into labour market, and the noble Lady herself was a member of that committee.

So we know that there are already the bodies within the Parliamentary network which can be used to provide that scrutiny. On that basis, on the basis of the consultation that we are proposing and the parliamentary scrutiny available, I ask the noble scrutiny available, I ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment 299.
22:12
22:13
22:15
22:36
None Portrait Oral questions: The safe return of abducted Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia and Belarus
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 18 House of Lords - 18 June House of Lords - 18 June 2025.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page