Bills
Live Bills
Government Bills
Private Members' Bills
Acts of Parliament Created
Departments
Department for Business and Trade
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Education
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department of Health and Social Care
Department for Transport
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Department for Work and Pensions
Cabinet Office
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Home Office
Leader of the House
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Scotland Office
HM Treasury
Wales Office
Department for International Development (Defunct)
Department for Exiting the European Union (Defunct)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Defunct)
Department for International Trade (Defunct)
Reference
User Guide
Stakeholder Targeting
Dataset Downloads
APPGs
Upcoming Events
The Glossary
2024 General Election
Learn the faces of Parliament
Petitions
Tweets
Publications
Written Questions
Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Research
Non-Departmental Publications
Secondary Legislation
MPs / Lords
Members of Parliament
Lords
Pricing
About
Login
Home
Live Debate
Lords Chamber
Lords Chamber
Wednesday 18th June 2025
(began 1 month ago)
Share Debate
Copy Link
Watch Live
Print Debate (Subscribers only)
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:07
Oral questions: The safe return of abducted Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia and Belarus
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, first My Lords, first Oral My Lords, first Oral Question.
15:07
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, first Oral Question. Idly to ask the question standing
15:07
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Idly to ask the question standing in my name on the order paper. -- Directly. The UK continually raises the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The UK continually raises the issue in multilateral fora alongside our allies and is active member of
the international coalition the return of Ukrainian children. We contribute to the partnership fund for resilient Ukraine, a multi-donor
initiative, through which we support the government in Ukraine to facilitate the return and reintegration of children. Through
PFR you we have supported the NGO
save Ukraine at the Ukrainian government 's bring kids back initiatives.
initiatives.
15:08
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the Minister. Whilst figures vary, Save the Children have estimated over 20,000 Ukrainian children have been forcibly transferred to Russia or Russian- occupied Crimea trees were separated
from their family, and subjected to systematic efforts to raise their
identity including education camps, forced adoptions and conscription. The sheer number and ferocity of
other international conflicts has resulted in relatively little attention being given to these
abhorrent violations of international law. So could I ask the noble Lord the Minister what urgent steps the government is considering to ramp up its economic
considering to ramp up its economic
sanctions and travel bans on those involved, the data supplied sections 19 individuals and three entities I believe.
And to ensure those
responsible for these war crimes are brought to justice.
15:08
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
She is right, I'm very pleased
that this question was selected because I think she's right to
remind the House what has been happening. It is a dreadful thing to happen to any family to find that
their child has been removed from
the country and not nowhere the
tardis and not know how they are and how they can be returned. We have been using our sections regime in
order to try to encourage the return
of children.
There have been... As she said, we are talking about estimates, in terms of numbers, but around 900 have been returned so far
out of 20,000. And we are not even,
Of confidence in those numbers, those are the Ukrainian government's
number so there is clearly a lot more that needs to be done. We don't comment on future sanctions designations, she knows that, but we
will continue use every tool at our disposal to locate these children and to support those who are negotiating for their return.
15:10
Lord Touhig (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Will disagree parts of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of war held by the Russian, the prisoners of war have hope and freedom of returning home. Not so,
freedom of returning home. Not so, the case of 1.5 degrees and children living in Russia occupied Ukraine, already thousands have been taken to
already thousands have been taken to Russia, liberally re-educated, handed over to Russian families and forced to become Russians. For these
forced to become Russians. For these children, there will be no freedom
children, there will be no freedom unless we help.
Can I ask my noble friend, will the government support the Council of Europe's demand that
15:10
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
the Council of Europe's demand that any peace agreement ending this war must guarantee the return of these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
kidnapped children. My noble friend does a wonderful job in the Council of Europe and we
job in the Council of Europe and we have supported the things he
have supported the things he described and we also raised this at the OSCE and the other four at which
15:11
Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
the OSCE and the other four at which we are able to do so. -- Every other four. I agree with every word he said and urged him to continue to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make the case that he does. The numbers could be even higher, as Russian administrators and
as Russian administrators and occupied Ukraine have been given a quota to deliver these children by
quota to deliver these children by resident Putin. One of the really comically terrible situation, one of the worst things is it's been
the worst things is it's been targeted at the most vulnerable
children. And particularly the children of people serving in the Armed Forces of the Ukraine. When
Armed Forces of the Ukraine.
When the time comes, for peace negotiations take place, will the
negotiations take place, will the noble Lady to her best to ensure
15:11
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
noble Lady to her best to ensure that the return of these children are nonnegotiable?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Absolutely. This is a crime. Children should not be pawns of war,
Children should not be pawns of war,
Children should not be pawns of war, ever. This is happening, many of the children as he says, are the most honourable children because they were taken from institutions,
were taken from institutions, sometimes, sometimes at checkpoints.
sometimes, sometimes at checkpoints. They are now in Russian institutions, sometimes in Belorussian so-called recreation
Belorussian so-called recreation comes. Sometimes the families. It is the not knowing, I think, that adds to the pain and the torture of the families, and some of these children
families, and some of these children are now becoming adults and are being required to serve in the armed
being required to serve in the armed forces.
This is abhorrent and it is
15:12
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
forces. This is abhorrent and it is something we will continue to raise and I'm glad that we have his support.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We normally think of for us something about lost and gained 10
something about lost and gained 10 -- territory but this is a surreal nightmare, almost impossible to imagine that thousands of children
imagine that thousands of children are being taken from Ukraine. A green with all the previous
green with all the previous questions, will the noble Lady make her best efforts to raise public
her best efforts to raise public awareness because I don't think there's enough yet, of this issue, and as others have said, make it
central to negotiations.
Finally, what brought the Nazis to account was the obsession with keeping
was the obsession with keeping detailed records. I do hope that we will extract enough information from
15:13
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
will extract enough information from the Russian side as soon as possible as to how many children and where they are being affected.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In his question is the point about mystification and that tells us a lot actually about some of the
us a lot actually about some of the motivation for the kidnap of these children but also for the war more
children but also for the war more generally. On the issue of records, it's difficult at the moment. We are working with the government of
working with the government of Ukraine to try and get accurate data and information using whatever means
and information using whatever means are necessary.
I should pay tribute to the Qataris for the role that
to the Qataris for the role that they have played in managing to negotiate the return of some
negotiate the return of some children. We'll have to do
children. We'll have to do everything we can to make sure that public awareness, as he said, is raised on this issue. I think when people find out that this is what
people find out that this is what has happened at this scale, such an organised way, they are horrified
organised way, they are horrified that this can be happening.
So I agree with him and I think we should
15:14
Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
agree with him and I think we should make sure that this is something that the public is made more keenly
that the public is made more keenly
See -- it is great to see unanimity across the House on his issue. I think I agree with every comment that has been made so far. All of
the many outrageous acts committed by Russia after the invasion, the systematic campaign of forcibly
adopting children from Ukraine
perhaps act as one of the worst.
In fact is the connection to Ukrainian language and heritage through as Baroness Tyler says the so-called
education, disconnecting children
from the Ukrainian identity. I wonder if the banners the Minister could update the House on what the government is doing to support Ukraine's domestic investigations and also linked the International
Criminal Court investigation into what are war crimes. what are war crimes.
15:15
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We are supporting the ICC on this, with funding and other support
is well. It does matter that accurate records are kept and that
we are able to hold and when the time comes the people responsible for the stressful crime to account.
We will continue to do that. We are working with Ukrainians to look at
how children are supported after they returned, the psychosocial
needs that they have. Because having been abducted, to another country
and subjected to, I think the euphemistically call it education,
but you know what we mean.
There will be impact on those children of
that and it is potent that we think long-term about what these children
long-term about what these children long-term about what these children
15:16
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
What is puzzling is the attempted
justification of this behaviour - is there no shame?
15:16
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
It's good to hear his question on
this because we all wish there was some lever we could pull. The first challenge we have is locating these
children and then... Their circumstances are all different.
Some of them are in institutions 'some have been placed with
countries families and some have
been moved to other countries. There is not an agency that can intercede and could do what we would all love
to do is to travel internationally
and get those children and bring them home.
That has happened in some instances where families have been
able to bring their children home themselves. This is far from
standard. To have only 900 returned at this stage when this has been going on since 2014, I think
concerns us all hugely.
15:17
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Second Oral Question. Baroness Hayter.
standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare my interest as Chief Executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland.
15:18
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The government is working to
improve domestic recruitment and retention in this area. In England,
we are introducing the first Fair Pay Agreement for Adult Social Care Committee implementing the first
universal career structure and
providing £12 million this year for staff to complete training and qualifications. These changes will
help attract staff to the sector, help attract staff to the sector, provide proper recognition and opportunities for them to build their careers.
15:18
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the noble Lady for her
answer. I apologise if it feels like Groundhog Day because I know she was answering a very similar question to
Lord Wood on Monday. As the noble Lady well knows, solving the recruitment and retention crisis in
the sector is long-term and will
take cross-party, and it has many regional variables. And her answer,
she referred to what the government is able to do in England. Coming from Scotland were one quarter of
rural and island carers come from outside the UK, we have a real
issue.
One provider said to me it's not just about money. Despite paying above average wages, we haven't interviewed a British person for
over 3.5 years. And in many rural
and remote areas, agency staff is both unaffordable and unavailable.
So will she feed back to her colleagues at the Home Office that
any cliff edge or one size fits all approach that fails to take into consideration regional challenges threatens to devastate an already
fragile service?
15:19
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
First of all, I thank and pay tribute to the noble Lady for her
leadership with Cerebral Palsy Scotland. I know she is aware that Adult Social Care Committee
devolved. That is why I made reference to England only. I'm very
happy to raise the points but noble
Lady made with the Foreign Office --
sorry, with the Home Office. I will raise them with whoever the noble
Actually, the other point that comes
to mind is in our work with our colleagues over the borders.
We will also be discussing with them how they can boost the domestic
workforce because it is so important that we reduce reliance on international recruitment.
15:20
Lord Turnberg (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, my noble friend may
have hinted at this already but one of the ways in which we might encourage retention and attraction
of the job of being a care worker is to ensure that they have a
nationally registered professional qualification. Is that going to be the case?
15:21
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I can say to my noble friend that
there are a number of ways we are promoting opportunities to develop
skills and knowledge, which will improve, I believe, morale but also the attractiveness of working in
adult social care. To that point, I'm particularly pleased that apprenticeships are available for young people so that they may see
the benefits of working in social care services. The three main areas are an expanded care workforce
pathway, we've also launched the
pathway, we've also launched the
adult social learning and support scheme which was launched in September, which will allow funding for eligible care staff to complete
courses and qualifications, and also we have now the new level to adult social care certificate.
That scheme
has been backed up by some 12 million this financial year. In all
of this, we are seeking to professionalise and recruit as well
as retain very valued social care staff.
15:22
Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The Spending Review promised £4
billion for social care but not until 28-29. That has been carved out of the NHS. Until then, there is
nothing in the Spending Review. All that's going to happen is that social care employers are going to have bits and bobs of sporadic
announcements of limited balsa funding. How on earth can they build a skilled workforce adequate and up
to the demands that will be placed upon it?
15:22
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Perhaps I could assist by clarifying that the Spending Review which allows for an increase of over
4 billion funding available for
social care is by 28-29. It is not a matter of waiting for that long.
That is in comparison to 2025-26. I
hope that I was helpful to Your Lordships' House in identifying a number of ways, actions that we have
already taken to professionalise and
up skill and allow people to build careers in social care workforce.
That is absolutely crucial. And that
aligned with stopping international
aligned with stopping international
recruitment in this area with I might add a period of time for transition of some years will actually shift and improve and
increase the adult social care workforce in this country. workforce in this country.
15:23
Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, while there are legitimate concerns over the levels of immigration, I think it is
important to recognise the contribution that immigrants have made to our great country. Not least
after the war when public services were helped by immigrants. --
Immigration. My contribution is about the volunteering service established during the pandemic. Unfortunately, this was close. I
realise that volunteer will not make
up for shortages but they can make a worthwhile contribution. worthwhile contribution.
15:24
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
While I agree about the value of
volunteering. As we have discussed before, I should make clear that volunteering is not a substitute of
employment on the right pay, the right terms and conditions and the right status. I would also
absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the contribution that has been made by those from overseas to
supporting our care service, and
indeed to all care workers. As we
have discussed in this chamber, the
scheme was not simply close.
It was something appropriate for when we were in a pandemic, but not for now.
In fact, we have introduced a whole range of measures which I would be very pleased to remind the noble
Lord of to ensure that we have more volunteers, better use and more
volunteers, better use and more highly regarded. They are invaluable.
15:25
The Lord Bishop of London (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
As we have heard concerns around
low pay and secure contracts are long-standing in the sector. I wonder whether she could explain it
to us how this will ensure that living wage, living hours and living pensions will be paid to staff among
the private social care providers. the private social care providers.
15:26
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The Employment Rights Bill, as noble Lords will be aware, does
establish a framework for a brew -- for Fair Pay Agreements. That would
mean an agreement through which the
Adult Social Care Committee pay and it's not necessarily just pay but
other terms and conditions as well, will be established through
negotiation bodies. Negotiations will be reached by many different
stakeholders in partnership. It will
be done in a responsible manner and that will help to address the
recruitment and retention crisis in the sector and support the delivery of high quality care.
of high quality care.
15:26
Lord Laming (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I'm sure the Minister will agree that we've got an enormous challenge to overcome the belief that all you
need to do this work is a kind heart. A kind heart is important but
there is a huge range of skills that are necessary over and above that.
It is important therefore that we do all that we can not only to provide the opportunities to develop these
skills but also we work incredibly hard to improve the status of these workers. workers.
15:27
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I wholeheartedly agree with what
the noble Lord has said. A kind heart is a good thing in most professions, I find. However, we do
require more skills and also many professions. But that is why we have
set out this and launched a whole range of new measures in skills
training and development. Also, in terms of stating status, paying
people properly and treating them properly will also raise the status.
15:28
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Third Oral Question.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, firstly, I'm delighted
that last month's Supreme Court judgement upholds the public's right
judgement upholds the public's right Enjoying one of the country's most beloved landscapes. The government continues to provide access to the
15:28
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
continues to provide access to the address. We will increase access to nature overall, including in national parks. We will ensure this is safe and appropriate, leaving a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
legacy for generations to come. I thank the Minister for her answer. I'm glad she recognises how courageous Dartmoor National Park
courageous Dartmoor National Park authority was in defending the public's right to wild camp or
public's right to wild camp or backpack camped on Dartmoor. She
will know that it took years of good practice, developing a camping code,
practice, developing a camping code, maps of where camping was in working with landowners and stakeholders to
with landowners and stakeholders to arrive at a solution that was a very happy one both for the public and
just about all the landowners.
Could she tell me Will the government
she tell me Will the government build on this good practice to make good on its promise to extend
good on its promise to extend countryside access, and use the Dartmoor experience to enable other national park authorities and
15:29
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
national park authorities and national landscapes to offer what is a truly magical experience of camping out under the stars and
being awakened by larks?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm wondering what kind of larks the noble Lady is referring to. It
the noble Lady is referring to. It makes while camping some very
exciting. She does ask a very important question. The government
important question. The government at the moment has no plans to extend
while camping as a guarantee in other national parks. I would say that every national park is different. It is important that each
different. It is important that each national park has the ability to decide for itself what is appropriate in its area.
While camping may be illegal but in some
camping may be illegal but in some national parks it is allowed where
national parks it is allowed where appropriate. For example, in the Lake District, which I know best, you are allowed to camp and stay for
you are allowed to camp and stay for one night. Make sure you leave no
one night. Make sure you leave no mess. I think it is important and that does work very well. The other point I want to make is we need to
15:30
Lord Jopling (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
point I want to make is we need to be very clear about what we're
talking about Wild camping and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The lack of understanding of the meaning and the rights under the
meaning and the rights under the definition of wild camping would be likely to be operable to lack of
likely to be operable to lack of understanding of the meaning of National Parks -- would be
National Parks -- would be comparable. As one who represented the southern part of the Lake District in the other place for 33
District in the other place for 33 years, I lost count of the number of complaints I got about visitors who
complaints I got about visitors who thought National Parks meant that
15:31
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
thought National Parks meant that they could set up their tent and cook their breakfast in anybody's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
garden where they happen to be passing. This is exactly the point I was
making about the difference between wild camping and illegal camping. In the Lake District as he knows, I
the Lake District as he knows, I mean I was walking the dog at Adele Walker this weekend. There are clear signs that say no camping were no
signs that say no camping were no fires. Yet as I walked along by the lake, there were 2p. This is a real
problem because often these people do not respect the environment -- there were two tents.
It's important
there were two tents. It's important that encourage camping in the right areas, and while camping where it is
areas, and while camping where it is appropriate, that we also ensure that that doesn't cause any damage to the environment or problems for landowners.
15:32
Lord Swire (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
landowners. Somebody who enjoys locking around Dartmoor as much as possible,
around Dartmoor as much as possible, I can attest to the fact that there is a finely balanced ecosystem and
we will all be aware of the excellent work being done by the 'Prince of Wales' the Duchy of Cornwall and trying to regenerate
some of the opulent areas of the
more. Whereas I'm fully supported of responsible wild camping, unfortunately the same cannot be said for irresponsible wild camping,
that was a particular problem in many National Parks up and down the country, Lochside and so forth,
during COVID.
Would that no minister agree with me that the government
must do everything they can to ensure that legislation and advice such as that given by the National
Parks authority of Dartmoor, on how to behave on the more, is rigorously
adhered to -- would the noble minister agree.
15:33
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
It is a real problem. He
mentioned COVID, it was shocking the
amount of rubbish left behind, by illegal campers. We had people abandoning all their tents, their
rubbish, and then who does the cleanup? The National Trust, the general public. He's right this is
not acceptable. But at the same time, we have to recognise that some
people camped very, very responsibly and in the right places and in the
and in the right places and in the
right ways.
I do think the example of Dartmoor has been excellent. As we develop our strategy and promote The Countryside Charity, because The Countryside Charity, because that's important, we take all of this into account.
15:33
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I do not have strong views on
wild camping but I agree with the noble Lady that so long as it does not damage the environment, landscape or private property, or farmers fields, and every National
Park has the right to decide it locally, I'm content. I do a very
strong views on people lighting fires and countryside, with the company and, picnicking or visiting.
-- Whether camping picnicking or visiting. It can cause enormous
visiting. It can cause enormous
damage, such as destroying 1/3 of NatureServe in 2020.
It doesn't happen spontaneously, in every case it's people causing fires. Using, by discarding cigarettes or those
disposable barbecues. Accessing the country is one thing but no one has
a God-given right to set fire to it, with barbecues. Will she give full support to all National Parks and
national nature reserves, and Natural England as well, and encourage those organisations and
landowners to ban the use of these disposable barbecues in the countryside.
15:35
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Noble Lord makes a very good point. I mentioned walking the dog
Emmerdale, there are signs saying no fires, but she readily walk along and there's evidence people have
lighting fires and topping down saplings to light fires. We do need better understanding around
responsibly -- chopping down saplings. Local authorities have powers to ban things like the use of sky lanterns or disposable barbecues if they so wish. And there's also
existing powers in legislation which can be used to regulate the lighting
of fires on landscape and national landscapes that are protected.
And
of course, we have the respect, protect and dry code which would include fires. But I think with the
dry summers we are seeing, it is becoming much more of an issue and I find the irresponsible use of disposable barbecues in particular
worry. We know we have fires in the countries because of those. -- In the countryside. the countryside.
15:36
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Could I ask the noble lady...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Given Labour's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Given Labour's manifesto commitments to improve responsible access to nature and enhance community rights to green space, can the Minister clarify
specific changes we can expect in the law and whether the rumours of a
the law and whether the rumours of a Green Paper are true, and if they are not true, can the Minister tells
are not true, can the Minister tells why the opportunity, the instructor and Planning Bill has not been used to deliver on those promises to
15:36
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to deliver on those promises to overcome some of the persistent barriers for people to access the outdoors? We are extremely keen to increase
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We are extremely keen to increase access to nature and I'm physically keen to improve access to those who
keen to improve access to those who are the most disadvantaged in their ability to access that, whether
through distance or culture, whatever reason. So we are doing a lot of work. Have an excellent team
working on the access will see at the moment. We are working extremely
hard to come up with good access
policies, including the National river walks, the new national forests, the other work we are doing, in order to really deliver on that promise.
15:37
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
-
Could I ask the noble Lady
**** Possible New Speaker ****
whether it would be important in the circumstances to perhaps arrest them for loitering with intent? I think that would be a matter
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think that would be a matter
15:37
Lord Harlech (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for the police and the Home Office. I declare my farming and land management interests in Wales. Last
management interests in Wales. Last year, mountain rescue services in
England and Wales were called out every single day to an incident in
Scotland, over 1,000 times during
the year. Can we, pardon the pun, proceed with caution, and any kind
of scope to widen out public access in our National Parks?
15:38
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I hear what noble Lord is saying.
I have friends who are in mountain rescue, advance into one of the weekend and they have been
particularly busy. I think the important thing is that often, the people that are called out by
mountain rescue are completely and utterly ill-equipped for what they
are doing. And that seems to be the biggest problem. The mountain rescue there is to help people who get into
trouble and if you have fallen and
broken your ankle or if there's a problem, absolutely that is the purpose, the same with any emergency services.
It's the people who go up,
try to climb mountains in flip- flops, without proper maps, to be blunt, and we have had it in Cumbria, believe it not. They are
the ones who really need our attention shall be so.
15:39
Baroness Hazarika (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Fourth Oral Question.
Paper.
15:39
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The government is determined to
root out the horrific crimes of grooming gangs and secure justice for victims. We have accepted the 12
recommendations made by Ernest Casey including the recommendation to establish a national enquiry and the
enquiries at. The enquiry will be time-limited, have statutory powers
to direct targeted investigations into local areas, with the aim of holding institutions to account for
current and historic failures in their response to group-based child their response to group-based child sexual exportation.
15:39
Baroness Hazarika (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank my friend for his answer.
I welcome this enquiry. I wanted to say that as a Muslim woman I want to profoundly apologise for what these
wicked, wicked men have done to white, working class girls. Many of
us feel deeply ashamed. And let's not call them grooming gangs. These
are great gangs. Which operated on
an industrial level. I hope the enquiry will hear the voices of Muslim girls who were also abused by these animals. I would like to ask
the Minister, he talks about a time limit.
The enquiry be capped at two years? Because justice delayed is justice denied. Given the public
interest, can this inquiry be televised and finally, given the incredible work Baroness Casey has
done, can she be appointed the chair because in a world of appalling systemic failure, she is the only public figure that many victims trust.
15:40
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I'm grateful to my noble friend and I want to place on record from
this Dispatch Box my thanks to Baroness, the naval Baroness Casey for the 197 page report she resented
on the government request. My noble
friend asks about the timescales Baroness Casey has indicated three years. I would like to see it speeded up but we have to discuss that with the potential chair of enquiry and the government intends
to try to recruit the potential chair of the enquiry as a matter of some speed and we are in the process
of doing that now.
Baroness Casey herself, and the noble Baroness, is
currently going to be involved in a further report but we will appoint a chair as soon as. As to the matter
of televising the proceedings,
again, if my noble friend will bear with me, that will be a matter for
discussion with the chair to determine. We want to ensure that we take action speedily on this issue which is why have accepted, all 12 recommendations, and why the 11 that
are not dated to the national inquiry will be in provided Information Order by this government
-- will be implemented.
-- will be implemented.
15:42
Lord Jack of Courance (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Will the inquiry include Scotland and if not why not?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The inquiry is looking at all areas of the UK. We have a responsibility at the Home Office
15:42
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
responsibility at the Home Office for action and Wales, but it is
important we consult and discuss with it devolved Administrations because there are 500,000 victims of child abuse across the United
Kingdom. 100,000 of those are related to child exploitation and our job is to reduce the number of victims and to hold those
perpetrators to account.
15:42
Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I'm very grateful to the noble
Lord. Lady Casey 's report shows
years of inaction by governments and the different authorities in the past, despite victims brave whistleblowing. Now is the time to
write the wrongs. Can I ask the Minister how the government plans to
put victims at the heart of the National inquiry, and in particular that they don't have to repeat the existing testimony again and again,
much of it has already been covered
in inquiry reports and" cases.
-- And in court cases.
15:43
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
She will no that the Excel report
was involved looking at this issue -- IICSA. They made recommendations and the government did not make
them. We are now in promoting those recommendations. The further
recommendations are now in a program for implementation including the
National inquiry. I think it's important the incoming chair, whoever he is, has the opportunity
to reflect on the previous product
of victim testimony and determine what to do with that product and also how best in full victims in the future.
It's important that victims
have their say and that the outcome of this is action to prevent future victims. victims.
15:44
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
If a threat occurs to a medical,
a medical threat occurs, we tend to
find and pinpoint the cause. If there is a threat to social health,
we tend to camouflage the cause of the concern. An example is the use
of the term Asian grooming gangs
which was prevalent at one time, and it was only when I pointed out it's about as helpful as saying, that
Europeans were responsible for the Holocaust. We need to get to
pinpoint the actual cause and
ethnicity now talked about as a subset religion, and there are text
embedded in dated texts embedded in religious texts that have very
negative attitudes to women.
It is time that those were exposed and
brought up to today's more enlightened times. enlightened times.
15:45
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
One of the key recommendations from the Noble Baroness Casey is to ensure we have some ethnic minority
data monitoring the data of offenders who have committed those
fences. Some police forces have
collected that, some have not. We are accepting the recommendation and will be issuing guidance to police forces and collecting ethnic data. There are a range of people who
abuse, there is a focus on grooming gangs from particular communities, but I say to the House, every member
of a particular community, white,
Asian, Muslim, and others, members of that community commit offences.
So we shouldn't ignore the fact that
there are people from a range of ethnic backgrounds, that commit offences. What we should be doing is
offences. What we should be doing is
offences. What we should be doing is
15:46
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I appreciate he says they are already looking for a Chair. It's an interesting model from Baroness
Keeley. Casino how long -- does he know how long the government expects
know how long the government expects
it to take? -- Baroness Keeley see. -- Casey.
15:46
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I hope she understands were
trying to do it as quickly as possible and I will report back to the house.
15:46
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
As has already been alluded to,
are foremost priority must be those
affected. Justice must be delivered
and delivered swiftly. Could he tell us what specifics government is
taking to support victims at this stage and ensure that any
stage and ensure that any
thorough.
15:47
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
One of the main recommendations
from Baroness Casey was to bring forward measures in the Crime and
forward measures in the Crime and
Policing Bill very shortly. It will be with this house I hope before the
summer recess and we will have measures within that bill at Committee Stage, and ends which will deal with victim support. deal with victim support.
15:47
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I welcome the Casey Review but I
urge the government to take any
opportunity possible to take Alexis Jay's recommendations. There are
opportunities within the Schools
Bill. Victims of those horrific crimes cannot wait any longer. I think this government and this House
in particular should be leading that fight to get justice for those
victims of those rape gangs that existed right across the country. existed right across the country.
15:48
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
He is absolutely right. This is why when this government came into
office, we looked at the Alexis Jay
recommendations, we determined that no action had been taken for the previous 20 months on those recommendations and we determined to
take action on them. That's why in the police and crime bill and in the Children and Families Bill, we met
every recommendation in that report and we will make sure they are implemented in full. implemented in full.
15:48
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, during the -- following the grooming gang trial in north-
east Newcastle, the safeguarding committee said that one of the institutions that needed to be
looked at was how the court
undertook the trial. And that cross-examination had been used as
another weapon against the young
women. I met and talked with those who had supported the young women
before and during the trial because the charity I chaired had taken that
the charity I chaired had taken that
job on.
And they were horrified at how young women during the trial had suffered yet again, so can we begin
to think how do we look at these trials and the cross-examination
through?
15:50
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I'm grateful to my noble friend. It's very important we recognise
that the experience of victims and giving evidence, particularly when
faced with the perpetrators, is extremely traumatic, and we should be ensuring that we make the court procedure as smooth as possible.
There are no recommendations in the
Casey Report about that particular issue but I will take my friend's comment and discuss them with the Ministry of Justice on these
matters. If any noble members wish
to continue questions, other contributions will be welcome this evening.
15:50
Business of the House
-
Copy Link
That conclude Oral Questions for
today. Any members who wish to leave the chamber may do so now in an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We We now We now come We now come to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We now come to to We now come to to instances previously debated in Grand
previously debated in Grand
Committee. -- Incidents. Medical
15:52
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Committee. -- Incidents. Medical devices -- Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment)
Regulations and one other motion. The question is that two questions
in the name of Baroness Merron be
agreed to on block. Has to be again in committee on the Employment
in committee on the Employment
Rights Bill -- house to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A big to move that the house do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. All of
15:53
Legislation: Employment Rights Bill – committee stage (day 10) (part one)
-
Copy Link
**** 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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to the actually two
amendments to hundred and 77 and 328 which I expect the noble Lord Lord Goddard will move shortly. I think
they are really interesting element of 227 which talks about the review
of a Fair Work Agency. I think that's, considering that a number of
questions have, about this, that's a fair assessment given there's still
a considerable amount of consultation to be done. In terms of amendment 328, it basically strips at the commencement of any part of
the act until this review has been
done and the Minister expect the view has been approved by resolution, not just relations.
The
reason I say this as I continue to assert that I think some of the powers here are going to be novel.
And even if 2006 Equality Act may give powers to EHRC, they have never
used them to institute legal proceedings, only as intervenor or
for traditional review, and taking on individual cases. I'm conscious there's a consultation there. I
think the amendment from the Liberal Democrats as an interesting way to think about how we really are
looking at the details of what this
new agency is going to do.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before I begin my comments around
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before I begin my comments around the amendments, news from afar, and
the amendments, news from afar, and Lord Fox just wants to pass his thanks honourable members of the House from all sides who have sent
16:14
Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-
Copy Link
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
Is at your Lordships letter that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. The
question is that clause 91 stand as part of the bill. All of those in
favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The
contents have it. Amendment 270 --
271B, not moved. 272, Not boot. The questions that amendments and unblock as part of the bill. All of
those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not
16:31
Amendment:271ZB Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
**** 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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-
Copy Link
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 (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
argue that the government should provide guidance. This is such an important subject. We will have to
return to it but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 94 stand
question is that clause 94 stand part of the bill. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The
contents have it. Amendment 271ZBA,
Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not moved. The question is that clause 95 stand part of the bill. Lord Jackson of
16:49
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Peterborough.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I rise to speak to a significant number of amendments in
significant number of amendments in my name and actually this is quite an interesting cornucopia of
an interesting cornucopia of amendments, with a number of amendments, which are essentially
amendments, which are essentially just probing amendments. But this is
just probing amendments. But this is the very nature of the work we are undertaking, to look at the menu
undertaking, to look at the menu sherry of this bill.
-- minutiae Of
sherry of this bill. -- minutiae Of the bill. We look at the real world ramifications and consequences of
ramifications and consequences of the bill. Whilst they may seem
the bill. Whilst they may seem somewhat obscure, some of the amendments, I think they are
amendments, I think they are nevertheless quite compelling and worthy of the Minister's attention. In addition to that, it's the stand
16:50
Amendment:Clause 95 Stand Part. Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Deputy Chair of Committees.
-
Copy Link
Amendment proposed. Clause 114,
page 125, line 34, after the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I have tabled clause 114 to stand as part of this group
114 to stand as part of this group of amendments. But I also supported
of amendments. But I also supported several amendments in this group, which have been tabled by my noble
which have been tabled by my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, many of which are in the nature of probing amendments to try and find out about this clause. I could find no clear
18:37
Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-
Copy Link
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
-
Copy Link
however, I think another point of just noted from our debate is on Monday the Minister, the noble
Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch
Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch referred to employees and employers. Today, the Minister at the dispatch box has been very clear, this is also about funding trade unions. So,
also about funding trade unions. So, I have to say to the House, to your
19:02
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Lordships that this is, has been a revealing debate and one, if I
discuss it with my Frontbench, maybe exploring further at the report
stage. With that I beg to move withdrawal the amendment.
19:03
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn?
this amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment withdrawn? A member to move. The question is clause 114 stand part of the bill? As many as
are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
contents have it. 150... 115 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 115
amendment 173, Lord Fox.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Clarity from these benches we fully support the government in expanding the legal aid and
19:05
Amendment:273 Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After clause 115, insert the following clause is printed on marshalled List.
19:07
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
marshalled List.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to Z come to a in my name. This is trying to understand in clause 149 in the Bilic refers to and in certain cases
the stop I would be grateful to understand what in certain cases means. I did look extensively, I
means. I did look extensively, I could only see insertion of a
could only see insertion of a particular thing to do with Northern Ireland. I would be grateful to understand that. I also am very
understand that.
I also am very happy to support the amendment, I think it was 323. I thought it
think it was 323. I thought it seemed like a sensible way of trying to make sure that justice is delivered effectively and making
delivered effectively and making sure that people can still have a fair access, but just also making
sure we make the best use of
19:08
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank all noble Lords, on this
particular group. Their contributions on this debate. And I
think Lord contribution. I will speak to him about the small and
medium companies -- Lord Sharpe.
Baroness Coffey has been my body again, supporting, in essence these
amendments. And to my certain
knowledge she did never call any of our proposals bonkers. I might come
back as well. The Ministers amendment again, we support that amendment. For its clarity and it
brings, to me, and understanding,
some people do get it.
Sometimes where these debates across the floor
of this House. Previous about...
They don't get it. Sometimes you
Tribunal typical of very stressful,
very complicated, and the simpler we can make it and the more efficient we can make it, but it does come with a price, nothing there is a
price, but I honestly think working together we can deliver this part
with a degree of certainty because I think all parties want that to happen, and so on this occasion I'm
happy to withdraw the amendment.
19:16
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
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 (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to this, I'm conscious of the sentiments expressed here. I think it would be putting the government and the
putting the government and the Secretary of State in a very difficult situation, if it holds information and then is not allowed to pass it on to relevant authorities, within the rest of
government. I hear what the noble
Baroness is have said, but I do not
believe that this would actually, in many ways it may encourage. I do not believe with all the other rights that are starting to come through
this bill, why anyone should be feared, especially when they are
specifically here on a legitimate visa, to which the noble Baroness,
Lady Holloway has just referred.
I am conscious of some of the exploitation I believe it is that
same sponsor that was then suspended
from having any further visas. I wasn't aware of what the Home Office
did or did not do. I think this is one, I understand the sentiment. I think this is quite a worrying trend, if we are restricting
actually the Secretary of State from
**** Possible New Speaker ****
formally upholding the law. I would like to thank the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Baroness Hamwee, who I had
Baroness, Baroness Hamwee, who I had the honour to serve when she chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee.
19:34
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
And she has raised a number of key points. As has the noble Lord
Pannick and I thank Lady O'Grady and Baroness Coffey for their speeches
as well. Just let me make it absolutely clear. Modern slavery remains one of the gravest human
rights abuses of our time. And tackling it requires vigilance,
clarity and effective enforcement.
It is crucial that the agencies tasked with identifying and
assisting survivors and with cooperating closely with the Independent Anti-Slavery
Commissioner have clear mandates for the Nessie necessary powers to act
Seeking to clarify the transfer
roles, from the gang masters and the labour abuse authority, to the Fair Work Agency.
The wider point is this. Enforcement bodies must be
both effective and well coordinated,
to respond to the complexities of modern slavery. Without this,
vulnerable individuals risk slipping through the cracks and the machinery
of justice and protection loses its impact. In-shoring transparency about which bodies are responsible for what and guaranteeing that they
are properly equipped, underpins our
broader commitment to eradicating modern slavery. It is not just about
legal technicalities, but about safeguarding human dignity and
upholding fundamental rights.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank all noble Lords, Lord Paddick for totalling two seven nine
19:36
Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-
Copy Link
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
-
Copy Link
be implemented. I wonder if I can
ask the Minister, perhaps I shall go back to Dame Sara Thornton and the
right to be sure I have not got it
wrong. That he can write to my honourable friend and I, explaining
just how those assurances actually
work their way through in the legislation, because just to have the assurances without the statutory
19:42
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
underpinning is important. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn cosmic amendment is by leave with on.
Amendment 273... Jackson, not moved.
Clause 136, not moved. The question is that 136 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
content". The contents have it. 137 to 139 stand part of the bill? As
many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" stop Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Lord
Jackson, not moved.
Amendment 273 S,
Baroness Jones, move formally? The question is that this amendment be
agreed? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. 140 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. Amendment 274,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Sharpe, not moved? I beg to move House resumes, will move on to consider statements. We were not returned to the Employment
were not returned to the Employment Rights before 2020 2 PM.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Rights before 2020 2 PM. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary,
"Not content" the contents have it. We will have a short break before I
19:44
-
Copy Link
19:44
Statement: The Casey Review (dinner break business)
-
Copy Link
Questions Questions on Questions on a Questions on a statement Questions on a statement made Questions on a statement made in Questions on a statement made in the
House of Commons on Monday, June 16 on the committee report.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on the committee report. As my noble friend said last week
in response to the government previous U-turn on Winter Fuel Payments. We are pleased that the government is finally listened to
government is finally listened to
the British public and helped run a inquiry into grooming gangs. It is beyond belief. This vividly apparent
that the victims have repeatedly
19:46
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
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, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
It is the term of the Labour
Party and then the toss cross
benches. -- Cross benches.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sure we are all happy with governors of all stripes. There is no doubt a problem where work
no doubt a problem where work walking on egg shells prevents the
investigation and perpetrating of particular fears of racism. Does my
particular fears of racism. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that we have seen these group
me that we have seen these group scandals alleged child abuse in the Catholic Church, the Church of England if the right reverend
Prelate will forgive me, patriarchal communities were vulnerable people are not believed.
And with that in
are not believed. And with that in mind, with Baroness Casey's report
mind, with Baroness Casey's report is at the age of criminal responsibility at just 10 years old
in England and your, too young. When children and girls who are exploited
children and girls who are exploited in this way, drugs, put into prostitution and then treated as
criminals and not as victims.
20:04
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
criminals and not as victims. I'm grateful for her echoing the praise and support for the noble Baroness, Baroness Casey and the
Baroness, Baroness Casey and the work that she has done. She has set down a further set of developments
that we can look upon to help reduce the level of crime. The noble
friend, the age of criminal responsibility. That is an issue which she has raised. We can reflect
on government. I cannot give her the chapter and verse on that today.
What I can say and I was hurt again. I said at a moment ago for in relation to recommendation three, which is reviewing convictions on
victims, we will legislate, in the
Crime and Policing Bill, before this House, to introduce a disregard scheme, for the convictions of individuals who are found guilty of prostitution offences... Children.
The criminal law has rightly evolved making clear that children cannot be prostitutes and it is long overdue
that those convicted of child prostitution offences have those
disregarded and there criminal record expunged.
We will do that in
the Crime and Policing Bill. I look forward to his Majesty's Official Opposition supporting us on the police and crime bill. Not voting
police and crime bill. Not voting against it as they have in the House of Commons.
20:06
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
-the noble Lord the Minister say whether the review involving children will also consider young
boys as patron of the drug treatment centre, and chair of the homeless
housing association. I am convinced
that there are young boys who are also led into prostitution in a similar way. similar way.
20:06
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The potential amendments in the
police and crime bill will look at individuals aware criminal convictions have occurred, be they
male or female, at an age where they were deemed to be children and we will be putting amendments in the
police and crime bill to ensure that those convictions are expunged,
those records are removed and the individuals, for the future and not
going to be subject to that. I look forward to their support on that.
20:07
Baroness Verma (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
It is really good to hear what
the Minister has said. Following on from the victims, they will need a
lot of help to readjust into normal life. We cannot just do an inquiry
and leave them to fend for themselves. With the noble Minister
please find support, for all of those that have come forward and for all the hundreds, I'm afraid going
to find, would the noble Minister, would the Minister assure us that the national inquiry means a
national inquiry and that it is not
going to be just five or six local authorities that are going to feed in and that all authorities and all
police agencies and all social
services feed in on what they are doing, whichever part of the country
they are, to be able to respond to questions about victims.
20:08
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I was just checking, I wanted to check on my right honourable friend
the Home Secretary said about
victims. She said in the House of Commons, a statement, on support for victims, Mr. Right honourable friend the Health Secretary, as in the England Health Secretary would be
Health staff in schools, identifying and supporting children and young who have experienced trauma, exploitation and abuse. And in terms
of broader victim support, the Home Secretary drew attention to additional funding for mental health support, in schools and has also ensure that the independent commission will assess victim
support, as part of this.
Once the chair is established and once the terms of reference are determined. I
think also that the point that she has mentioned about the UK nature of this inquiry are extremely
important. I have responsibility for England and Wales. The Department of Health has responsibility for
England. But obviously some matters are devolved. Police in Scotland and
in Northern Ireland, and health in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But I want to ensure and we have the mandate to the chair,
potential appointed in due course,
to ensure that they deal with all devolved Administrations, consult
them and look at lessons which can be applied, with consent of the devolved Administrations and the UK wide basis.
wide basis.
20:09
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
It is turn of the Lib Dems. Can I
fully support the comments from my colleague, Baroness Brinton, particularly around a lack of action, previously seen around their
report. Can I just press the
Minister on one of the points at the Baroness Brinton did highlight, which is around this issue around
bringing in the Hillsborough law, that will have the duty and candour of local authorities. I think the Minister didn't respond to that and
I think it is really important.
If we are to bring that law. If we have to have this inquiry and it is going
to have to have results, we knew that duty of candour. Can I just, in response to what I heard from the
noble Lady here. Also talk about charities. In some places like my home city of Sheffield, the organisation I worked for a
Sheffield futures was the lead
provider in that city. Can I just
make this plea, there are lots of accusations about certain communities.
If we are to get justice, like any other police officer will tell you, then they
have to work within those communities and alienated communities will not deliver justice. I tell you now, from 30
years experience in EU services in South Yorkshire, there will be victims of a South Asian origin as well. Because of the issue around
honour, colleagues in here will know what that means, some of those for hymns have remained silent. It is
upon us all to make sure that those hymns have a voice.
-- Those victims.
20:11
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Baroness Hazarika (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
20:14
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
, I just think it is so important that we, both sides, do not think
that we, both sides, do not think politics. The reality is that none of our parties have covered ourselves, including my own. Absolutely hands up. It was not that
20:14
Baroness Hazarika (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Absolutely hands up. It was not that long ago when a conservative perspective prior Minister said that
perspective prior Minister said that money being spent on historic child abuse inquiries was money spat up the wall. I think we all need to
the wall. I think we all need to remember that. These are not
historic and I would like the Minister to update us what is being
Minister to update us what is being done to protect the victims, today. Because we know that these crimes
20:14
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Because we know that these crimes and these rape gangs are still operating in our towns and cities across the country. Speak about I'm
across the country. Speak about I'm grateful to my noble friend and I want to have consensus in this House on the measures that we take forward as a whole. Which is why I raised
as a whole. Which is why I raised the issue of the reflection of the police and crime bill measures that
we voted against in the House of Commons, within the past hour and 1/2.
She is absolutely right to
1/2. She is absolutely right to focus on the issues. She is right to focus on the issues and what is being done now is that we have
focused on putting additional
support into policing and tracing. We have investigated a lot of cases, some 800 cases that were closed
cases, previously and increased the conviction right by 15%. That is an
important measure. I think again the acceptance of the 12 measure from Baroness Casey's report and with the inclusion of the exam
recommendations are legislation and examining those still further.
This government is taking this issue very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
seriously. I declare my interest as co-chair of the national police ethics
20:14
The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
of the national police ethics
committee. Despite Baroness Casey's first recommendation that we must see children as children, I think it is taken until tonight and this House much of the conversation to
move into that area. And actually, point made by the Chief Constable of
Greater Manchester, an event I attended earlier today. He has talked about how much of the failure
to prosecute was down to police forces treating children are not as victims but is somehow culpable in
their own abuse.
I think the level of them and is there already confirming that they will have a victim centred approach to this
inquiry. Can I ask the level of the Minister to insurers that the inquiry will expose the deepest
point, the data it collected so we can determine to what extent it was poor response by police forces, the
victims of these series of multiple rapes that arise behind that failures. Does he agree this is far
better than lazing the issue and as the media seem to be doing everything comes down to the
ethnicity of the perpetrators.
We congratulate the knighthood, the acknowledgement for a man who as it turned round the city and how it is
turned round the city and how it is turned round the city and how it is
20:16
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I will begin by congratulating
Sir Stephen on his night hurt. -- Knighthood. The recognition of the
support he has done in turning around Greater Manchester Police with the support of the mayor. He has also mentioned the issue
convictions which I hope I have
covered. It is important that we look at the whole issue of how we
got here. The focus is on gangs of
particular ethnicity, and that has been a driving force for the work that has been done in local and now
the national working inquiry.
We
need to look at the issue of child sexual abuse and child sexual
exploitation and how we ensure that those young children who are victims find a place where they can have
trust in a system to bring forward
their experiences and to be believed in bringing forward those experiences and for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service and
the courts to provide a mechanism for them to secure convictions of
those evil predators who have abused them in their childhood.
them in their childhood.
20:17
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
One of the greatest failings in this horrific case of exploitation was the fact that many, particularly police officers were afraid to come
forward. They felt like they would accused of being racist and it would be in of their career. What support
is the Minister going to give in the
context of this inquiry to support new police officers, Newcastle officials and new people in authority who may feel the need to come forward as part of this inquiry. What will you give them so
they can give forward without fear of losing their career, bearing in
mind it was a Labour Prime Minister who said people who wanted these enquiries were somehow far right.
That said an environment of fear.
How will be windup and give people the space to do their jobs properly? the space to do their jobs properly? -- How will we wind that back.
20:18
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Lord Cryer (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The first person who raised the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The first person who raised the
issue, another was the first whistleblower, happens to be my mum. She was then smeared and attacked
She was then smeared and attacked particular by Labour figures, for
particular by Labour figures, for being a racist. I'm not talking about ministers in the government. Many of whom actually supported her.
Many of whom actually supported her. And in the case of David Ankit, the then Home Secretary, went out of his way to ensure the prosecutions happened, which they did.
I'm talking about councils, counsellors
talking about councils, counsellors and other institutions who went on the attack and lied and smeared
the attack and lied and smeared about the right gangs. Possibly some of them generally thought that they couldn't bring themselves to believe
20:22
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
couldn't bring themselves to believe it. I think some of them were complicit, some of them knew it was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
going on and decided to cover up. In those cases, if there is evidence to that fact, then they should be brought before the courts and prosecuted. Can I pay tribute to the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I pay tribute to the noble Lord Cryer's mother, I served in parliament with her and I know she raised these issues and faced
raised these issues and faced extreme difficulties, and took a
extreme difficulties, and took a very brave stand. That is what can I say to colleagues across the House, let's look at how we deal with this
let's look at how we deal with this
issue because my party hasn't been in government for 14 years but we have been in control of some of the councils.
My party wasn't in control of government when a lot of these
of government when a lot of these issues happened but I still have got a responsibility to look at ensure we deal with these in an effective way. I wanted to make sure we deal with these recommendations accept
20:23
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
them, see them through and this House will monitor me to make sure we do it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
... The Right Reverend Prelate said victims need to find a place they can trust. Now, among the
they can trust. Now, among the promises of action as a promise of
promises of action as a promise of further action to support child victims. For many of these children and people to be able to speak out
and people to be able to speak out there going to need the support of known and trusted adults, those might be people like youth workers,
might be people like youth workers, teachers, local professionals.
Is the government going to ensure there is enough resources in communities
20:24
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
is enough resources in communities affected that those kind of trusted adults are available to support victims?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I hope I can answer the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I hope I can answer the noble Baroness in a positive way. I have said already we will look at how we give support to victims, to be able to interact with the potential
to interact with the potential inquiry and the potential chair. I want to make sure the chair, whoever
he or she is, has an opportunity to look at how they frame that issue
look at how they frame that issue rather than how central government directions on it. The Prime Minister has been clear that the inquiry will be fully funded and we are looking forward to how we can develop that.
forward to how we can develop that. I say to her that the involvement of
I say to her that the involvement of victims is absolutely central. And we need to have support for victims because I don't want to be, people
because I don't want to be, people who are talking about the cases and what is happening to them in the
what is happening to them in the past, but I think it's important we get the truth of what is happening, where there have been institutional failings and how we put in place
failings and how we put in place policy options to rectify that, to reduce future victims and to ensure that we bring perpetrators to
20:25
-
Copy Link
effective justice.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There has to be again in committee on the implement rights bill. Baroness Jones Whitchurch.
20:26
Legislation: Employment Rights Bill – committee stage (day 10) (part two)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill. Baroness Jones Whitchurch. I beg to move that the House to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that the House to resolve itself into equity on the bill. The question is that the House to resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the
opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content" the contents
20:26
-
Copy Link
Amendment 275, Amendment 275, Baroness Amendment 275, Baroness Chakrabarti.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I hope My Lords, I hope that My Lords, I hope that my My Lords, I hope that my probing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I hope that my probing amendment, like the principal of
equal pay for equal equivalent work, the principle that sits behind it, is uncontroversial and therefore I
need not detain the committee for
too long, as a sort of gas to this committee when some noble Lords have been really putting their hard yards
in full so long. I have been incredible greatly over the years to discuss my concern about equal pay
20:26
Amendment:275 Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
Copy Link
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
**** 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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
development and thinking on that forthcoming legislation. That, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The
that the amendment be withdrawn. The
that the amendment be withdrawn. The
277 not moved. 288 not moved. Amendment two 79, not moved. The
question is the clause 141 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Contrary content. The contents have
Contrary content. The contents have
it.
The question is that clause 142 and 143 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. Amendment 279 ZZZ
a, Baroness Coffey. a, Baroness Coffey.
20:45
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I beg to move, sometimes this reminds me of ZZ Top. Amendment 279
20:46
Amendment:279ZZZA Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
**** 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
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed, in clause 144, page 144, line 19, leave at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
144, page 144, line 19, leave at paragraph B. -- Leave out. I would just like to thank my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would just like to thank my noble friend Baroness Coffey for her
noble friend Baroness Coffey for her amendment. Because she does raise thoughtful and important questions about Parliament's role as an
employer and of course the complexity of managing the site
which contains over 600 other
employers. These are legitimate concerns that deserve proper consideration, not least because
Parliament should seek to model best practice in matters of employment
and compliance. And I think we all
agree with that.
But does it comply? And shouldn't have the power of
entry into these premises to check
that we are complying? To my noble friend has made compelling points, and I do hope the noble Baroness the
Minister will respond with clarity and detail, because that concerns
that my noble friend has outlined are not theoretical. They touch on
the credibility of this institution
as both lawmaker and employer. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister's response and the
government's justification for retaining or reconsidering the
exception as currently drafted.
exception as currently drafted.
20:50
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
-
Copy Link
I will withdraw. I didn't mean to put the Minister in a difficult
place. I thought her answer was very graceful. My expectation is technically this is a royal palace
so that might be leading to this and
indeed things like licensing laws don't actually apply and no do health and safety rules technically. However, that aside, I think it
still, we still need to consider how we act, and I hope nothing, this
little debate has treated reminding ourselves of the obligations that we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all share. With that I beg to move. Is it your lordships' pleasure
20:54
Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. The question
is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 144 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
"Not content". The contents have it. The question is that clauses 145 and
146 stand part of the bill. En bloc. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not
content".
The contents have it.
content". The contents have it. After clause 146, amendment 207
After clause 146, amendment 207 nine, is a die, not move -- 279, ZA.
nine, is a die, not move -- 279, ZA. To -- I arrives to speak to these
20:54
Amendment:279ZZB Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
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 (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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
Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-
Copy Link
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
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
Amendment:279GA Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reports stage. I beg to move. Clause 149, page 147, insert as
21:27
Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does the Noble Lord wish to withdraw? Is it your pleasure this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. The question is
leave withdrawn. The question is clause 159 stone part of the bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will be very brief. I feel like a support act really because the
a support act really because the substance, the meat of this issue and this clause has been debated.
and this clause has been debated. Although I am delighted that this is the final schedule and the final
the final schedule and the final part of the bill, so we are on the final stages of the bill. But can I
21:40
Amendment:Clause 149 Stand Part. Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
final stages of the bill. But can I just say very briefly, with respect
21:40
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
just say very briefly, with respect to the Minister, we often ask for the Minister to write to elucidate
21:40
Amendment:Clause 149 Stand Part. Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
equally, schedule 12.
21:42
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Most of what I needed to say was said in the last group. So I won't labour the points. Except add a bit
of colour. Because my Noble Friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and I do consult
quite widely, and we consulted this
morning with a distinguished employment lawyer, details the following, but if you apply now to an employment tribunal, you would have no chance at all of even
getting a preliminary hearing for 10 months. That's next April. And in
order to get a resolution, a case resolved, you would be looking at probably December 2027.
That's 2.5
years away. Or nearly. And my Lords, is going to take a lot more than the
number of judges the noble Baroness mentioned that they have recruited so far in order to fix that
particular problem. I wish her good luck and I hope she succeeds, but I really don't think that we should be
doing this. doing this.
21:43
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
The question is that clause 149 stand part of the bill. As many are
of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. In schedule 12 amendment 279H moved formally Baroness Jones. The question is that
this amendment be agreed. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".
The "Contents" have it. The question is that schedule 12 as amended, the 12th schedule of the bill. As many
are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".
The "Contents" have it. The question is clause 150 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary,
"Not content". The "Contents" have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it. Of the clause 150 amendment 280. Amendment 280 is designed to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 280 is designed to address the use of substitution clauses that allow for illegal
clauses that allow for illegal working. There are different ways of measuring it but on some estimates
measuring it but on some estimates there are 4.7 million gig economy workers in the UK, including around
21:47
Amendment:280 Baroness Penn (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
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
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
economy to account. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 150 insert the wallowing new clause is printed on the marshalled List.
21:51
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is printed on the marshalled List. I would like to congratulate my noble friend Baroness Penn for
noble friend Baroness Penn for tabling this important amendment. Requirement for certain company
directors to maintain and report a register depending -- dependent
contractors under substitution clauses is a measure that will bring
much needed transparency to a complex area of employment. It
recognises the evolving nature of work arrangements in sectors such as
courier services and taxi operations. Of course there are compliance burdens associated with maintaining such registers, especially for large companies operating over multiple
jurisdictions.
Additionally data protection considerations must be
carefully addressed to ensure sensitive personal information is handled appropriately and securely.
These are important factors that require careful balancing against
the benefits of increased transparency but we look forward to
hearing ministers response. hearing ministers response.
21:52
Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-
Copy Link
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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would be very welcome indeed. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my moments. Is at your Lordships pleasure
this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 281 not moved. Amendment
282 Lord Sharpe not moved. Amendment 283 Lord Fox not moved. Amendment
284 3286 Lord Freyberg not moved. Amendment to a seven Earl of
Clancarty not moved. Amendment 268 Lord Freyberg not moved. Amendment
2893 Amendment 289 3298 inclusive
Lord Holmes of Richmond not moved.
We come now to amendment 299
Baroness Noakes.
22:00
Amendment:299 Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
**** 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
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to this stage when I say I beg to move. Amendment proposed articles 150
22:06
Baroness Penn (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed articles 150 and set the following clause is printed on the marshalled list. Given the outcome I will be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given the outcome I will be incredibly brief, but I just... My Noble Friend and I don't always find
Noble Friend and I don't always find common cause, even though we are on the same ventures, but this is an extremely sensible amendment, and
the noble Lady has explained to the extent to which she has also shaped
it according to the kind of government's approach and thinking
more widely in this bill, and given
the amount in this bill that is being left to secondary legislation,
if I was in government, if I was in that department, I would welcome a proposal like this, even if it didn't stem from our own proposals
and our own officials, and it's a good example of where, giving very careful consideration to actually
what this would bring and help the Department get the secondary legislation right first time in
having this expert committee review it, I think could only be welcome,
so just wanted to briefly add my support to my Noble Friends amendment.
amendment.
22:07
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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
Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Are not going to detain the House for long. I would just say that with the exception of the expert group
which I was not aware of, I could have written the noble Baronesses
note, her speaking notes myself. It runs along the lines of blah blah blah, consultation, blah blah blah,
select committees. And basically we
know best. This was a genuine attempt to try and enhance the
process of parliamentary scrutiny. Select committees are simply not set up to deal with the detail of
secondary legislation.
I'm sure the noble Baroness will be aware of that. They are set up to do some
things very well, usually broad
arranging topics such as those undertaken by the economic affairs committee of your Lordship's House, they are not good and never attempt
to look at secondary legislation. I can see a lot of secondary legislation coming down the line. I
can see the need for greater process information to help Parliament in
its job on that, and I'm not
surprised by Minister's response.
I will consider again before it gets to report what I do with my ideas which I had hoped would be
constructive contributions to the government's bill. A big leave to withdraw. withdraw.
22:13
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment is about leave withdrawn. Amendment 300, Baroness Noakes not
moved. Amendments 301 to 302 Lord Clement-Jones not moved. Amendments 303 Lord Clement-Jones not moved. Amendments 303 2304 not moved.
Amendments 305 Amendments 3052 Amendments 305 2309 Lord Sharpe not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
moved. I beg to move the House do now resume. The question is that the House do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do now resume. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The
22:15
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contrary, "Not content." The I beg to move the House do now
adjourn.
22:36
Oral questions: The safe return of abducted Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia and Belarus
-
Copy Link
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