Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral to require an impact assessment on the effect on the emergency services. That is proposed in Amendment 254, which seeks to insert proposed new subsection (4) to Clause 75; and in Amendment 255, on the ability of the services listed in the 1992 Act to provide minimum service levels with a new Section 75, requiring an impact assessment.

As noble Lords will remember, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 enabled the Secretary of State to set minimum levels of services in essential services, so that employers could give notices to trade unions that their employees must comply with Section 234B. Specified services included health, fire and rescue,

“decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste”

and border security. These are vital areas of the public services and, indeed, often incorporate private sector services too.

The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady and Lady Coffey, both pointed out that the Act was not drawn on, but it is my view that it acted as a leverage, as has already been pointed out. I support also what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said: given time, the Act would have come into its own. It was not given time, partly because the Opposition, who were then in pole position to take over from the Conservatives at the next general election, made it clear that they would repeal it and fought tooth and nail against the Bill throughout the debates.

Clause 75, to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 for minimum service levels in these sectors, will appear, as has been said, to many people in this country as an irresponsible act of Government. They see that, every time the Labour Opposition is about to come to power or has the chance of coming to power, the trade unions ramp up their campaign, often calling strikes and causing chaos in the public services—some emergency services included—thus providing the Labour Government with the springboard to measures such as the present one, and indeed the present clause.

However, even if it served as leverage, the chaos was mitigated as a result of the 2023 Act, with schools kept open, rail services running reliably, if not quite as frequently, and hospital treatments taking place. Given the militancy of the unionised workforce mainly in the public sector, employers there may not particularly relish serving workplace notices, but there may be an incentive, and it may be necessary to give employers in the public sector an incentive or an instruction to do so. Right now, the issue we and the public face is, will we have our emergency and essential public services for which the country as a whole pays handsomely through its taxes for such services? Will people have a right to the benefit of the service they pay for?

Being an employer is not an easy job; it is a hard one: one of constant interaction and agreement with employees on whom the success of any enterprise depends, be it a business or charity or the public sector. It may be necessary to have such a requirement, as was stipulated under the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, to bring employers who are not minded to go that extra mile to find an agreement to some dispute. It might be necessary to have that if there is no other incentive in place, and very often, in publicly paid for services, there is no incentive for an employer to go that extra mile.

Moreover, the prevalence of industrial action, with the disproportionate impact on the public sector and emergency services, must owe something—and does, in my view—to the prevalence of a proportionately large group of the public sector being unionised: almost 4 million, 3.9 million, in 2025 and 3.8 million in 2024, of the 6.4 million trade unionists.

This figure indicates that we are dealing with a potentially militant public sector union membership of around 50% who can hold our country to ransom if there is not a requirement for minimum service levels. This is not a very fair deal for employers who may want that extra muscle which the law has given to reach some agreement, and for the employees to reach an agreement also.

By inserting a requirement for an impact assessment, we shall at least be encouraging information to be supplied to taxpayers and the public, so they too can lend their voice to the need to mitigate the damage done by the lack of availability of treatment in hospitals and the damage done to children’s education, to border controls and to fire services, not to mention basic rail travel to go to work and earn a living, which is perpetuated by Clause 75. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendments, and I urge the Government, even if they are determined to bring forward this unnecessary clause, to allow the public to judge the impact by producing an impact assessment.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group of amendments, which introduce various review provisions linked to the operation and impact of measures in the Bill. Amendments 254 and 255, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, seek to ensure that the consequences of key provisions, particularly around the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the content of Clause 75, are properly assessed after implementation. While post-legislative scrutiny can be helpful, there is a balance to be struck between evaluation and reopening the substance of the reforms.

I shall also speak to Amendment 258, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, who is unfortunately unable to be here today. His amendment would require a review of the impact of Part 4 on small and medium-sized enterprises within six months of Royal Assent. I am sure he will be delighted by the number of voices that have joined in support of that approach today, because this is an important proposal. Small and medium-sized businesses do not have the legal departments or HR infrastructure that larger organisations enjoy. Clarity, simplicity and practical support are essential if those firms are to understand and comply with new duties under employment law, particularly where industrial relations are concerned. This amendment would help to ensure that legislation worked in practice for the full range of employees it affected, and I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment to ask for an impact assessment that details the number of days lost to strikes in the 12 months since the Act was passed and in the previous 12 months. He spoke about the repeal of elements of the 2016 Act and about the ONS statistics.

Part of the reason why we need an impact assessment on the number of days lost to strikes is because, as my noble friend said, we have no evidence. This Bill, in particular aspects of Part 4, is likely to increase the number of strike days. I say that because the main problem with many of these clauses is that they undermine the balance between the employer and the employee, which my noble friend Lord Fuller spoke about as both a public sector and private sector employer. They remove the arrangements on a number of accounts which allow for a balance to be struck between the interests of employer and employee, and for agreement to be reached.

The clauses also remove the inducements and encouragements to avoid industrial action. We spoke earlier about Clause 73, on protection against detriment for taking industrial action: new Section 236A gives workers the right not to be subject to detriment as a result of official and protected industrial action and stipulates that an employer may not take action, and may not refrain from an action, to prevent the employee engaging in legitimate industrial or protected action. Yet excluding the employer’s ability to give inducements to workers for not taking protected industrial action where others do, is in fact prohibiting actions by the employer to hold back or to encourage workers not to take such action. One example might be to offer a bonus or withhold some extra benefit.

There are very good reasons to avoid strikes, not least for the good of the whole economy and the good of this country. Employers and employees should be given a level playing field, and many of the measures taken by the previous Government since 2016 and before then, all of which are in the 1992 Act, allow for that level balance to be struck between both parties. But many of these measures will encourage industrial action, which is not to the good of workers, employers or to the country at large. An impact assessment would at least provide the evidence that the country so badly needs if we are to start putting pressure on the Government to restore the balance in this delicate arrangement between both parties.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for their contributions. I will be brief; I do not want to stand between noble Lords and their dinner break.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his Amendment 262. We have already debated impact assessments at great length and I will not repeat the same arguments. Any industrial action is regrettable and all parties have a duty to seek a resolution to such disputes. Failure to do so is basically a lack of management and leadership by all. We have also debated the repeal of the 2016 Act in previous debates. I will not mention that either. Furthermore, it is a manifesto commitment.

Despite its good intentions, the amendment would impose a review procedure that in effect repeats what the Government already intend to do. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, business and the economy are considered, and that analysis assessing these impacts is published. Our impact assessment also outlines a plan for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill and subsequent secondary legislation.

As noble Lords will see from the impact assessment, our Employment Rights Bill could have a positive direct impact on economic growth, helping to support the Government’s mission for growth and ensuring that we raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. The Bill is expected to benefit people in some of the most deprived areas of the country by saving them up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work.

To conclude, I reassure your Lordships that we already have robust plans in place to assess and review the Bill’s impacts, including on industrial action. My commitment in an earlier debate to meet noble Lords to discuss the impact assessment further still stands. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 262.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

In general, I want women to have a fair shot in the workplace. This clause is doing nothing to help them.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am against Clause 31 standing part of the Bill. The 2010 Act protects against gender and other types of discrimination. It replaces earlier Acts, as your Lordships will know, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The principles of equality are commonly supported. The aims are those on which people agree and under which employers are bound. Section 78 of the Equality Act stipulates that:

“Regulations may require employers to publish information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether, by reference to factors of such description as is prescribed, there are differences in the pay of male and female employees”.


We have an Act that is commonly agreed on and obeyed, and known by those to whom it is addressed.

Clause 31 proposes to add a new Section 78A after Section 78, which stipulates:

“Regulations may require employers to … develop and publish … an ‘equality action plan’”


in respect of gender and equality,

“showing the steps that the employers are taking in relation to their employees with regard to prescribed matters related to gender equality, and … publish prescribed information relating to the plan”.

This will oblige more compliance, more bureaucracy and higher costs on employers—and it is unnecessary because we have the law.

We have just been listening to the discussion of the strategic defence review. We are going to have to spend a lot of money on defence. There are going to be lots of demands on the public purse. To oblige more compliance and bureaucracy on employers at a time when things are tight will not be a great help to the other demands on the public purse. It is not only about compliance and bureaucracy; much worse than that it leads to something beyond the principles of the Equality Act. It prompts institutions in practice to devise and interpret action plans that result in a 50:50 balance between men and women, and steps will be taken to achieve that level playing field and to discriminate positively.

Take the example of academic shortlisting, where, in order to achieve a 50:50 balance, things can be so ordained at the shortlisting stage in order to appoint women, and as they are so ordained, discrimination takes place against men and appointments are made not on merit but on gender. This results in action plans under which men are discriminated against. It is also unfair for women because, once positive discrimination comes into play, women too suffer. The women who are appointed are perceived to have been appointed not because they come first on merit, or in a fair competition, but on account of their gender.

I shall comment briefly on new Section 78A(4), which sets down that

“matters related to gender equality include (a) addressing the gender pay gap, (b) supporting employees going through the menopause”.

New Section 78A(4)(a) is too broad. Take the case of a male and female employee appointed at entry level to similar positions. They start with the same salary, but one may do far better than the other, be given far more responsibility and be promoted eventually to a higher role. How is the gender pay gap to be addressed, given that the talent, resourcefulness and ability of one employee naturally results in more responsibility and higher payment?

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has already mentioned new Section 78A(4)(b), which has no place in the workplace. It is discriminatory in its assumption that women need special help at certain times of their life. It also violates the professionalism of a good workplace in treating the personal as public, and it puts the employer into a discriminatory role in requiring special support for a select group of employees, rather than acting as a dispassionate employer who treats all employees well and fairly.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also support the proposition that Clause 31, on equality action plans, should not stand part of the Bill. We meet tonight with the knowledge that the OECD has downgraded the UK’s likely GDP for this year and next year. Less than an hour ago, the Minister said, I think I am right in saying, that it was not the intention of the Government to impose any onerous obligations on businesses as a result of the Bill. This is an example of exactly that.

I am very concerned about this clause, because it is very widely drawn and relies disproportionately on regulations that will be tabled, or laid before the House, once the Bill becomes an Act. I pay tribute to the very powerful intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the thoughtful comments of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Is it really the duty and responsibility of a Minister in the sixth-biggest economy in the world, a mature economy of 68 million people, to impose by ministerial fiat, in primary legislation, the minutiae, the weeds, of

“the content of a plan”

for every business that has more than 250 employees,

“the form and manner in which a plan or information is to be published; when and how”

that plan is published, and, in new subsection (5)(d)—maybe I am being obtuse, but I do not even understand the meaning of this—

“requirements for senior approval before a plan or information is published”?

What does that even mean? Does it mean the chief people officer, the chief executive, the managing director or what?

It would be much better were the Government to use their energy, and the good will that is behind significant parts of the Bill, to work with people such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, ACAS and others to develop professional, timely briefings for employers. But they are not doing that. They are instead insisting, in the Bill, that they will direct these equality action plans, irrespective of what type of business is being transacted and whether it has a workforce of 251, 25,000 or 250,000.

In fact, the clause does not even define “employee”, “employer” or “descriptions of information”. It fails to define them and says that those details will be reserved for regulations to be laid after the Bill gets Royal Assent. New subsection (7) is also very opaque when it states:

“The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as are prescribed”.


Again, that is very loosely drawn. We do not know what it means or what sanctions will be in place and available for Ministers to lay down in regulations. New subsection (6) states:

“The regulations may not require an employer, after the first publication of information, to publish information more frequently”.


It does not say “must not”, so Ministers can still use regulations to enforce periodic publications of and changes to these regulations.

For all those reasons, this is an unnecessary clause. It will add costs and administrative burdens. It will certainly take a significant amount of time, for instance, to get in specialists in human resources as consultants to draw up these plans on perhaps a 12-monthly basis. It will take a lot of administrative time and take away from employing people, for the bottom line and profit, which will impact employability. For that reason, I support the proposition that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

In short, I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the wording of Clause 27, and to recognise the impossibility of consultation in these circumstances and that the need to provide for statutory redundancy pay for employees is already fully taken care of in existing legislation. Awards from employment tribunals for failure to consult—whether they require an extra three months’ or 90 days’ pay, or six months’ or 180 days’ pay—will double these payments or more. They will, in many circumstances, remove money owed to both suppliers and the taxpayer.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s amendment and have little to add to what he and my noble friend Lord Moynihan have said. I emphasise that we ought to support such amendments for reducing the levels of collective consultation for companies involved in insolvency proceedings. We should do so in the interest of reducing the escalating costs to a company as a result of compliance and protracted timing. I support these amendments for that reason.

As we have heard, the Insolvency Act 1986 obliges the administrator to act in the best interests of the creditors. The more time and compliance are demanded of a company, the more it will cost and the less there will be for creditors. These costs will escalate under Clause 27 as drafted. As a result, the creditors will have less available to pay their bills and their employees. We will see a domino effect on companies left short of cash flow and on their ability to pay their bills and their employees. These amendments are very important, because we cannot afford a domino effect, with businesses left short of cash because of the compliance costs and protracted timings posed on companies facing insolvency proceedings. They are suffering anyway; their bills have not been paid. In the end, the less that is available to pay them, the worse the outcome will be for the whole economy, for employment levels as a whole and for the cost of living.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on this really quite interesting clause. I have carefully read Hansard from the other place in trying to understand what it is really putting in place. I am concerned by aspects of the comments made by the Minister at the other end, Justin Madders. He said that it really means only that businesses have to consult on their location and only with trade union representatives, and that, “By the way, these things get sorted in legal debate in the courts, and we hope the courts will understand”. That is not good enough when we are writing primary legislation.

In thinking this through, it is important for the Committee to consider what is happening here. Why is this needed? It has apparently been done to reduce the pressure on people with a vulnerability. Let us take the example of a pub chain, which has quite a big estate and has decided that it is going to reduce its number of hours. That could be a consequence of some of the other measures being brought in by the Government or just a trend that is happening. So it starts to think about what it is prepared to do in terms of how many people it employs in its pubs. It may not want to do that straight away; it may want to think about it in different sections and to leave that discretion to local managers. The man or woman in the street would think that that is perfectly sensible.

However, the businesses that gave oral and written evidence to the Bill Committee are worried—which the Minister recognised in saying that they should not worry—because that is exactly what the legislation is saying they will have to do. They could be undertaking consultation at huge expense, right across the country, while recognising that some of those situations could be very localised.

We already have sensible measures in place. When there are going to be significant redundancies across the country, it is already a legal requirement for them to go before Ministers, whether from the Department for Business and Trade or the Department for Work and Pensions, who can then mobilise local jobcentres and the like to prepare for those redundancies. Imagine going back to the business considering the impact of that on what can be quite localised operations. The Explanatory Notes are silent, frankly, which is why I took to reading Hansard from the Commons.

I am concerned and would be grateful to hear from the Minister why this is the right approach and how, despite the uncertainty still left in this legislation, the Government want this to be in place. Instead, they should accept the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt to make sure that these situations are well considered and that we do not end up in a situation where, despite the primary legislation, we have to go to an employment tribunal again and again. For that reason, I hope the Minister accepts my noble friend’s amendments.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill so succinctly. I welcome my noble friend Lord Harper, who is not in his place, and wish him very well in this House.

The Bill seems to have two aims and to be speaking to two different audiences. One of the aims is to control the borders by tackling the criminal gangs who ferry migrants to the shores of this country. A number of clauses—Clauses 1 to 12—will introduce a new Border Security Command to tackle the gangs. There will be new offences—in Clauses 13 to 18 and 21 to 23—with new powers and data-sharing powers. The Bill aims to address the very wide concern in this country about levels of immigration, both legal and illegal or irregular, but it aims also to tackle the asylum and immigration system, to strengthen and build confidence in the border system, and—to do that—to repeal certain parts of Conservative legislation.

That part of the Bill is addressed to people on the left who see the streamlining and processing of the asylum system as paramount. It is not a matter of tightening the rules, and I welcome the Minister’s outlining some of the more peripheral ways in which these will be strengthened—in Clauses 41, 43 and 45, for example. It is also not a matter of reviewing the international agreements from the post-World War II period for Europe to protect people who were displaced by the war, by the defeat of Germany and by the new arrangements with the Soviet Union to give it some sphere of influence over eastern Europe.

From the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, on the Cross Benches, we have heard something of the numbers involved then. We are speaking about 2.1 million people of European origin, displaced mainly in Europe. However, we are now looking at a world where, globally, people are on the move. The figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is 400 million refugees. These are very significant numbers. He rightly alluded to the 1951 refugee convention and some of the international framework of law. Many people like to pooh-pooh those of us who feel it needs to be reviewed because it is totally unsuitable for today’s global world, with millions of people on the move. Therefore, I will concentrate on what kind of figures we are dealing with in this country alone for immigration and asylum. I fear that streamlining and processing the system is not enough to help reduce the overall numbers.

In the year in which the new Government came to power, there were 224,742 asylum cases in the system in June 2024. For the year ending March 2025, around 50% of claims had been granted at an initial decision, giving 45,084 people refugee protection, according to Home Office figures. Some 40% of asylum claims were granted between January and March. This is a significantly higher rate than historically; the rate was 29% in the period from 2001 to 2018. It was 18% more than in 2023 and 5% more than in 2022, and it includes almost all small boat immigrants, whose claims by and large tend to be successful—77% of them.

With such numbers arriving after the Conservative Government’s measures to deter, I am very worried about Clauses 37 and 38, which are going to repeal those parts of the Act that acted as a deterrent. The figures speak for themselves. In 2023 the numbers of people arriving—they are just astonishing—fell to 36,699, a figure substantially lower than the 54,702 the previous year. I cannot think it right to say that the measures that the Conservative Government introduced, the Rwanda scheme and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, did not serve as a deterrent. Those numbers do speak. I agree that it is too late for Rwanda, but certainly there are the measures in the Illegal Migration Act.

To close, I welcome those parts of the Bill that aim to strengthen the borders, strengthen control of the borders and bring in offences, but I rather fear that they will not be strong enough to deter illegal migration. I fear that in trying to speak to two different audiences, we will end up pleasing neither those who want a more streamlined immigration system that will allow more asylum applications and more claims to be granted nor those in the country who, by and large, want immigration, legal and illegal, drastically cut.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

There is a clear solution here. As currently written, the Bill offers some scope for exemptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours, such as in seasonal work. However, I plead that that is, certainly at the moment, a vague provision, and we need explicit regulation to define full-time students as a category of workers who are exempt from this duty. The regulation could specify that students on zero-hours or low-hours contracts are excluded from the obligation to be offered guaranteed hours, thus ensuring that universities, student unions and seasonal employers are not burdened by requirements that simply do not fit into the nature of student employment. This would ensure that employers can continue to offer flexible work to students without the threat of penalties or unnecessary costs, and it would also allow students to continue working in a manner that fits their academic schedules and personal needs, rather than forcing them into fixed hours that they cannot meet. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment in the name of my noble friend. I am an employer, and I have declared my interest in the register. I founded and was the executive director of a think tank for over the best part of a quarter of a century, and now I am research director there. We continue to employ students on a flexible basis. As your Lordships know, many universities have changed their timetables. Some are taking much shorter summer breaks, some have started working more flexibly and many work remotely for certain classes. Postgraduate and undergraduate students welcome the opportunity to train, get a foothold in the world of work and understand what happens there. They learn disciplines. They learn the discipline of work, timetabling and deadlines. But we have to be flexible. Terms can be busy. There can be things such as essay crises, or a postgraduate student may have an extra schedule to fit in, and of course we will accommodate that.

We have devised a good work programme. I am speaking only to give the Committee an example of the damage this will do, particularly to the students. We devise a work programme so they can work remotely and do research when they have free time. They want to earn money, and both parties are flexible. I, particularly as a former academic, recognise that their work in the university, their teaching and their essays come first. This suits all parties. We have had full-time staff who have come to us with good degrees, stayed three or four years and then gone on to do a professional training course, perhaps in law or accountancy. They, too, want to come back and continue with the work that they have brought to a high level, and they will be paid accordingly. There is no exploitation in this market; rather it is mutual gain.

It is a great pleasure for me to see young people. I have had students from inner London universities whose family had no habit of third-level or even second-level education, who came from families from abroad, who used to ask for time off during their time to take their granny to the hospital in order to interpret for her. We gave them opportunities, and it is a great pleasure to see that they have done very well as a result. Some of the work placements are organised directly with the university, and for others students write in themselves. I beg the Government to listen to this amendment and take heed, because the Bill will do untold damage to the life chances of students and their capacity to earn and keep afloat when they are paying for their studies.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, this debate takes me back to my own student days and the work that I did as a student. It was not very glamorous, I have to say. I did the overnight shift shelf-stacking at Gateway, which set me up, obviously, to be a Peer in your Lordships’ House. I also did a stint at McDonald’s. That was valuable experience in terms of socialising, learning life skills and the important opportunity to meet different sorts of people.

I believe that this Government are fair-minded and decent in the way they wish to protect the interests of working families who want the certainty of being able to put food on the table and earn a decent wage. I think we all believe that that is very important as an imperative. However, the mark of a good piece of legislation is the ability to answer the question, “What problem is this solving?” Another mark of good legislation is the ability to be flexible in carving out some parts of a Bill where the effect of the Bill will be disadvantageous to a group. I think that this is one such example and that the very important points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral should be taken on board by the Government.

Remember that this is a student generation that has lived through the trauma of Covid. Many students and graduates have had to start their working career not being able to socialise in an office or a factory or out on site but at their kitchen table with their laptop. My problem is that employers who, broadly speaking, are not wicked and rapacious but want good people to join their business, make money for them and grow themselves as people and individuals and workers, will not take a risk with this legislation. This goes through the whole of this legislation. Employers are going to be significantly more risk-averse if they are going to be compelled to offer guaranteed hours to certain groups, including students. I think Ministers should give that consideration.

The reason that this is a good amendment is that it recognises that we have a very complex, fast-moving labour market and that young people are making decisions and value judgments about their work, employment, training, skills, knowledge and experience that I did not take 30 years ago and my parents certainly did not take, as you were generally in the same job for the whole of your working life, but—I would not use the word “promiscuous” necessarily, but I cannot think of a better word—younger people now are a bit more promiscuous in the decisions they take, and therefore they value that ability to enter into a flexible contract. In my time, I would not have expected a guaranteed hours contract. I would for someone aged, say, 35 or 40 who had a family and had to provide for them, but I think my noble friends have made a good point that this amendment would allow the Government to carve out this particular group. I do not think there is anything in the Explanatory Notes or the impact assessment that definitively makes the case for keeping students in this group, and for that reason I would like the Minister to give active consideration to this amendment. It is a sensible amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is designed to improve the Bill. It recognises the real-life consequences and issues that may arise from the Bill: in other words, fewer young people having the opportunity to work and fewer long-term employment opportunities. For that reason, I am pleased to support my noble friend’s very good amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 29 and support my noble friend Lord Fox’s Amendment 27. My amendment probes the Government’s intended meaning for the phrase “reasonably believed”, which relates to short-notice cancellation of shifts. This phrase may seem innocuous at first glance, but it carries considerable weight in determining whether workers—particularly those in insecure or temporary arrangements—are entitled to compensation when a shift is cancelled, shortened or otherwise fails to materialise. Without a clear understanding of what constitutes a reasonable belief in this context, we risk leaving both worker and employer in an uncertain and potentially contentious position. A test that lacks definition can quickly become a source of dispute rather than a resolution.

To be clear, my intention is not to impose overly prescriptive language on the Government, but rather to seek clarity on how this standard is to be understood and applied. For example, it is not enough for an employee to assert that they are expecting a shift to proceed even when the hirer has not provided written confirmation. What factors should we consider in assessing what is reasonable? Should they include previous patterns of communication, the urgency of the situation or a reliance on verbal assurances? Clarity is not a luxury that employment law has—it is a necessity. Vague thresholds serve no one, least of all those trying to navigate an already precarious labour market. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide reassurance that the Government’s use of this term is underpinned by clear guidance, sound reasoning and a fair balance between the interests of workers and agencies alike.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 22, which would allow the duty to provide reasonable notice not to apply in certain cases, and Amendment 24, which would do likewise for the duty to provide compensation under new Section 27BP(1). The Bill’s approach is likely to damage the effective working of the labour market, for which any sensible law needs to take account of the delicate balance between the needs of a business, which needs a workforce, and those of a workforce, which depends on a business succeeding to provide work and income for the future.

If a Bill does not account for exceptional circumstances, it becomes a straitjacket on all parties. In the case of this Bill, in providing for exceptions to guaranteed-hours, reasonable notice and compensation obligations, it should take account of the difficulties businesses have to navigate to keep afloat and continue to make a success of things, as well as contribute to the whole economy and the country’s overall welfare, provide jobs for the labour market, and offer opportunities for people to work, earn and, sometimes, get their first job on the jobs ladder.

We understand that businesses have both quiet periods and busy periods—such as hospitality events—where they need extra hands. A business must allow for periods of extra business as a matter of course—some of these are predictable, others not. Businesses know there are times when cover is needed with no notice, such as when a team member is off sick or at a funeral, but by the same token they need to be able to avoid adding to their problems and costs when they are a victim of circumstances that unexpectedly change. Yet the Bill requires the employer to give notice of changes and make provision for compensation if a shift is cancelled, moved or shortened without sufficient notice.

These amendments simply ask that a Government can make regulations so that the duties under new Sections 27BI and 27BJ need not apply. That would give power to a responsible Government to ensure that there can be exceptions, so that businesses are not burdened with the costs and time involved in the tribunal process and potential compensation payments in cases where, due to unlikely and unforeseen circumstances, the guaranteed-hours work was not available at short notice.

We have already heard examples, but no business is exempt from the difficult changing circumstances with which they contend. Given the burden that the business sector will face under the guaranteed-hours clause, a Government will have few tools at their disposal to tackle what could be an unfair obligation—one that might be mitigated by circumstances in the normal course of events—to exempt the reasonable notice required for changes or cancellations that have an impact on the business, and the compensation obligation, which will add unfair costs to a business.

I will take three sectors—each very different—to illustrate a potential example. The first is the retail sector, where extra help is needed to deal with a delivery and prepare it for the shelves overnight. What if the delivery van does not arrive, or the motorway is closed due to an accident or roadworks? The business has little or no notice of the failure, yet it will lose custom and income on lost sales. None the less, there is no provision in the Bill to allow for it to give less than what, under the measure, will be reasonable notice, or to protect it from paying compensation.

In the care sector, extra hours may be needed to help with certain residents needing extra support, or someone due to arrive on a given day. What happens if the person dies or the resident falls ill, has a heart attack and must go to hospital right away? There is no notice of that, and the extra work does not materialise. The care home will lose income on its empty room and overhead, yet payment will be expected. Where is the money to come from—the local authority, the care recipient, or the estate if it is a death? What will the care home do to tide over an income shortfall when having to pay its suppliers for everything from food and cooking to linen, room cleaning and care?

The CEO of the Carers Trust explains that social care providers are often forced to rely on zero-hours contracts because of a “lack of funding” from local authorities. She says:

“If zero-hours contracts are banned”—


or, I would add, made more difficult or costly—

“social care providers must be given the funding to afford the increased costs that brings”.

The CEO of the National Care Forum says that

“these measures must be accompanied by the financial and wider support necessary for providers to implement them, as well as interim measures to boost care worker pay”.

These changes must be reflected in its funding so that it can continue to do its vital work. So are the Government prepared to make a commitment to cover the costs that will be incurred if these clauses go through unamended?

Another example would be a conference organiser where the IT system fails. Despite a service contract in place to repair it instantly, nothing can be fixed because the failure lies elsewhere: a cyberattack or an energy blackout. This can happen overnight. The business loses its data, it loses customers, who are unable to pay an entry price, and it loses an overhead. Depending on how long it is before the system can be got back to normal, it may lose so badly that, ultimately, if the problem recurs, it may have to curtail operations and overheads. Without the amendments allowing the Government to provide for exemptions from the clause, there will be higher costs that may ultimately lead to the failure of the business.

There are enough uncertainties and costs for employers without making these worse, but the obligations of the Bill and these clauses could add significantly to costs and complications. Who will pay these extra costs? We know that this Government have been in the habit of saddling the taxpayer with additional costs in respect of workers in the public sector but not for businesses or charitable trusts, or indeed independent schools in the case of imposing VAT. What about the care homes taking local authority work? What about the costs of the uncertainties of the Bill itself? Although the compensation clause stipulates that compensation will not exceed pay for the lost shift, we do not yet know what the amount will be, what “short notice” is supposed to mean and what is meant by “qualifying shift”. We have to wait for regulations.

There are good reasons for these amendments. If we want businesses and the labour market to flourish, and to enable businesses to navigate the unwelcome outcomes of unexpected problems preventing expected workloads without adding to their costs, there are good reasons for the Government to accept them and for the regulations to respect the spirit in which they have been made.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom’s Amendment 28, which replaces the test of reasonable belief with that of formal confirmation. I mentioned earlier the work done by the Low Pay Commission on zero-hours contracts when it reported in 2018. It also examined the issue of compensation for short-notice cancellation of shifts. It emphasised in its report that there would need to be fairly rigorous record-keeping. It said that both employers and employees would need

“proof a shift had been offered”.

That speaks to the content of Amendment 28. It does not seem to me to be sensible to have something that rests solely on reasonable belief, because that is impossible to prove and would result in difficult questions being put to an employment tribunal. Although I am obviously not in favour of imposing bureaucratic requirements on employers, this is one area where the legislation should point towards there being some formality of record-keeping so that there can be no dispute about whether shifts have been offered or cancelled.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lawlor]

21: Clause 2, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
“(7A) Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”Member's explanatory statement
This prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, but only to laws as they stand on a particular and defined date.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lawlor]

43A: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Report: scientific evidence(1) When making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report indicating whether the regulation is supported by any scientific evidence.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report published under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 43A, I of course support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Frost in this group, to one of which I have added my name. My amendment would require the Government to place before Parliament a report on whether scientific—which includes technical—evidence supports a regulation covered by the Bill, because assessment of risk and for safety should be based on objective evidence, technical and scientific.

The regulations for sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, explicitly mention scientific evidence, whereas reference to science is not typically found in regulations on technical barriers to trade, or in the chapters in FTAs. They are often implied by wording: for example, a requirement that regulations on risk are based on documented and objective evidence. For international trade agreements, such evidence is assumed. Either our goods conform with internationally agreed standards or, if they derogate, they should draw on scientific and technical evidence to show that they conform to an agreed standard. There are good reasons for this.

Such objective evidence and assessment is not only needed to assess risk objectively but is implied in the WTO framework, on which many trade agreements are based. They have to be WTO-compliant. The WTO’s own Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, TBT, requires that, where appropriate, parties

“specify technical regulations based on product requirements in terms of performance rather than design or descriptive characteristics”,

one aim being to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures followed by WTO members do not create “unnecessary obstacles” to trade. That is certainly one of this country’s enduring free trade objects.

My amendment would promote a number of benefits and aims. It would help to focus attention on real risk, on the basis of provable evidence and that alone. It would make for transparency: those who produce, market or buy a product could know where they stand and trust the measures assessing risk. It would avoid saddling producers and consumers with costs for unnecessary, overburdensome obligations that result from the political attempt to tie the UK to unproven regulations, which may flout WTO international trade law, to protect their own products against competition from another trading partner.

In products, the contents of which may include some agricultural content, it will help the UK to keep its eye on the evidence and purpose. I commend my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment, which would specifically require that a statement on the need and purpose for such regulations be made. I have already mentioned one example in Committee, which is the difference between UK REACH and EU REACH regulations. The stated purpose is vital to the difference in how one is more burdensome than the other.

My amendment would also reflect the way the UK has moved to make the most of international trade opportunities in our trade treaties, with, for example, the CPTPP. The UK can help shape these, as a leader of the oldest rules-based international trade order, while trading globally as one of the world’s oldest and most successful free-trade economies. Above all, it would avoid obliging businesses to follow the EU’s code-based precautionary principle. That may be unrelated to evidence and often driven by officials, while being costly to producers and raising prices sky-high for consumers, making some countries uncompetitive in world markets and the product not safer but, in many instances, less safe. I therefore beg to move.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 56 stands in my name. As it is, I guess, the last time that I will speak on this Bill, perhaps I may use the opportunity to join others in saying thank you to the Ministers for the willingness they have shown to meet us and to show flexibility on parts of the Bill, even if that flexibility has possibly been more evident on its more marginal and peripheral aspects than on the core provisions, which matter so much to us. I thank them anyway for it.

One of those core provisions, which we have debated at length, is of course Clause 2(7), which creates the power to align UK legislation with EU law. My Amendment 56 would ensure that the affirmative parliamentary procedure applied to such secondary legislation under that provision. This is important, as the procedure of legislating by cross-reference to the laws of another entity is certainly, to borrow terminology from another sphere, novel and contentious. Therefore, if it happens—I am sure it is going to happen and probably quite a lot, I fear—it really ought to do so only consciously and according to a procedure that gives both of this Parliament’s Houses the maximum powers to be aware that it is happening and to influence it to the maximum possible. Of course, that is what the affirmative procedure is about. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Ministers might look favourably on this amendment in the interests of respecting the rights and powers of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, like I say, I really do not want to repeat what we debated last week, but the whole purpose of where we are today is to give us the freedom either to diverge from or to mirror any regulation, particularly product regulation, as most of it comes from the European Union. Either we follow it, or we do not—that is the freedom that we have.

As I said, I am aware that we have Third Reading still to come but, as we approach the end of Report, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It will probably come as no surprise that, for the reasons that I outlined earlier, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 43A.

Amendment 43A withdrawn.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Thank you. There is not much more, your Lordships will be pleased to know. We will be focusing on the key issues. When we come to further groups, your Lordships will see that the work we on these Benches have done has been to try to prioritise proper scrutiny of the issues that I have talked about—safety, the environmental impact and the consumer, as well as legal issues—and to make sure that that can be done and this Bill changed in a way that survives contact with a huge government majority in the House of Commons. That is what we will be doing, and that is why we will not be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on his amendment.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am awfully sorry: I was not quick enough on my feet before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke. I should like to speak for a few minutes in support of my noble friend Lord Sharpe—if that is all right with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

I support my noble friend’s amendment because I think it sets out the framework and purpose clearly, and that is very important when we are making laws by statutory instrument. Besides, I think it is important to retain regulatory autonomy, and I will discuss that point with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in a later group, but I do not think this is the time to have that discussion. It is regulatory autonomy that allows us to do all kinds of things to protect our consumers and ensure that we make the right sorts of laws for our products and our economy. That regulatory autonomy also allows us to align with any laws we like from any jurisdiction and, of course, the Government have a point in that.

My concern about not having an explicit regulatory autonomy aim in the purpose clause is that it would make us out of step with our existing arrangements with other trading partners, where we have agreed outcomes, conformity assessment procedures and other arrangements to recognise. We should not militate against that, which we may be in danger of doing if our purpose does not state these things explicitly.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have given up so many hours to meet me and my officials to go through this Bill. I really appreciate those meetings. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendment seeking to introduce a new clause about the purpose of the Bill. Likewise, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon.

We have had many hours of debate on the Bill and I think that we all support the intent of this amendment—the importance of improving product regulation. On that, I hope that there is consensus. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade pointed out when giving evidence to the Lords International Agreements Committee, the powers that the Bill would provide give the UK regulatory autonomy. If the previous Government had continued in office, they would have needed the same Bill.

We require this Bill, as powers in other legislation are inadequate for updating our extensive product metrology and regulatory regime and responding to new risks and threats. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about secondary legislation. This is about 2,000 pages of highly technical regulations. It is not a good use of parliamentary time to use primary legislation every time these are updated. There are, however, differences in how we go about improving regulation. That often requires a balance to be struck, such as where obligations sit, or regarding requirements that businesses must meet. That nuanced debate, which we heard during the Bill’s passage, may not be best served by introducing a broad “purpose to improve” in the Bill.

The Bill is about strengthening the UK’s regulatory autonomy. It will make sure that there are appropriate powers to regulate products to suit the UK’s needs and interests. Parliament will have ultimate control, with oversight of the regulations made under the Bill. The Bill is about providing powers to enable the UK to change regulation to suit the UK’s needs and interests, ensuring consumer safety and certainty for businesses. The Bill is necessary because we do not currently have those powers as a nation state. As I said earlier, all changes will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

I hope that I have been able to outline why this amendment is not necessary and ask that it be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of my Amendments 21 and 59, and to support the amendments, to which I have added my name, from the noble Lord, Lord Frost.

Amendment 21 is designed to prohibit ambulatory provisions and dynamic alignment with any foreign law, including that of the EU, which is specifically mentioned in the Bill. Amendment 59 would introduce a sunset clause for regulations under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 for using foreign laws under subsection (7), so that they expire after four years. As explained throughout all the proceedings on this Bill, this is an open-ended measure; it gives sweeping powers to the Minister to make law by decree, including to import and mirror EU laws. That is a very different matter from updating and making safe our own laws. I would like to thank the Minister for his constant courtesy and willingness to discuss these issues, and for making it a pleasure to work on this Bill, though the subject is not to my liking.

The Government justify this approach by referring to the highly technical nature of the Bill and the sheer number of regulations. They seek to reassure us by saying that they will use these powers only when in the best interests of the country. There are good reasons for prohibiting dynamic alignment with any foreign laws, as well as for not allowing ambulatory provisions. I will speak about those first. Not only should we do so to temper the use of the open-ended power proposed for the Executive, which is the subject of constant discussions and of my noble friend Lord Hunt’s eloquent and persuasive amendment today; there are also good economic and trade reasons to prohibit dynamic alignment with foreign laws, including those of the EU, which the Bill specifically mentions.

I would like to mention a few of those reasons. UK law is well tested and brings certainty to businesses in developing goods for market and competing overseas. Here, the Minister is on very strong territory in saying that many of us would be happy with such laws having gone through such a process, without having to go through parliamentary process every time. Our processes operate under a legal system that is celebrated for its expertise, experience and independence. It follows well-understood process systems: evidence-based testing, some scientific assessment, and consultation with consumers and producers alike. So, by the time the goods get to market and are approved, everyone understands what is at stake. They know the laws and they have been consulted on them; they trust the science and the evidence base.

However, laws and regulations made elsewhere under a code-based system—I refer particularly to the EU’s—are often based on input from officials who are remote from the area of law they are making. With the EU, there is the danger that we are importing anticompetitive laws because, as has been pointed out—including by one of the current President’s economic advisers—EU laws are protectionist. The EU has a different economic system, which was designed by the French to lock in, for very good reasons, the German economic growth that was expected after the Second World War. I can understand the French’s reasoning. They have a centralised command-system economy, which may work for France. So there are very good reasons not to import, on a dynamic basis, laws which are protectionist.

In Committee, I gave examples of where these laws add cost, drawn up by EU economists. They would also mitigate—some economic law lawyers will corroborate this—against our free trade treaties with other trading partners, such as the CPTPP. These are reached on the basis of mutual agreement over standards, which are subject to conformity assessment and independent dispute arbitration and regulation. If we are going to mirror—and mirror dynamically—one set of laws, particularly those of the EU, we may be increasing costs and changing standards, and be in breach of our agreement with the CPTPP.

I turn briefly to why we want a sunset clause. There are very good reasons for having sunset clauses. They bring benefits to legislation, and they give Parliament the chance to consider its merits after a fixed period, which is especially needed for a law imported by statutory instrument. They involve the user in the regulatory plan: for instance, they know that the law in question is going to be introduced on condition that it will be assessed, and that involvement can institute behavioural changes. A sunset clause helps to safeguard democracy and bring legal certainty. It makes clear in legislation what is subject to expiry, when, and under what conditions. Professor Helen Xanthaki, at UCL, has pointed out that sunset clauses improve the quality of legislation and they

“serve as tools of clarity, precision and unambiguity; and as tools for efficacy”.

For these reasons, I ask the Minister to consider my amendments and the others in this group. They open up this measure, and require any Government to be more open, broadly, to foreign laws, ensuring that any laws we do import are subject to a sunset clause and that there will not be dynamic alignment, which goes very much against the transparency and clarity that are the hallmarks of good legislation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was going to give a long analysis of the economics that demonstrate how poorly manufacturing businesses have performed since the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement, but that would have been a Second Reading speech, so I decided not to give it. Instead, I will speak to the amendments we have before us. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for tabling his amendment and for allowing me to sign up to it.

Members on the Conservative Benches seem to find terror wherever they go. There is danger; there are plots, schemes and Trojan horses all over place. I would not like to live in their world; it must be very frightening. This Bill does what it says it does, and this amendment does what it says it does. It makes simple a process that has been put forward very carefully and in a measured way by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

There are all sorts of things that the Liberal Democrats would like to do that are far more extreme than the noble Lord’s amendment, but we recognise the limitations of this legislation and the nature of what we are debating. That is why I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Russell. It is a simple and modest measure that has the practical benefit of helping out businesses.

To close, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said that it would not be sensible to close off options—quite. Closer alignment with EU regulations within the government negotiated red lines would yield a boost to the UK economy of between 1% and 2%. That sounds like an option to me.

Citizenship Applications

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The guidance applies to individuals from 10 February of this year. The noble Baroness made a number of points about what is happening to asylum status. None of the proposals in the guidance mean that individuals cannot apply for asylum status. None of the proposals mean that individuals cannot have asylum status approved. None of the proposals mean that individuals cannot apply for citizenship. The basic test is that there is a presumption that those who enter the UK illegally will not have citizenship approved unless there are specific criteria in the guidance to make a case for their particular circumstances. The designed effect of that is to ensure that we reduce the amount of illegal migration and ensure that people enter the United Kingdom, or apply for asylum, through legal, strict routes and means.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, what proportion of people who have come into the country illegally since the Government took office have applied for asylum status?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I can give some figures, but not off the top of my head. I will certainly write to her about that.

The key question is illegal migration. The guidance we are talking about is on revising procedures for those who have entered the United Kingdom illegally and currently could apply for British citizenship after a period of 10 years. We have lifted that 10-year procedure, so no one can have British citizenship approved, as a presumption, if they have entered the country illegally. They can still apply for British citizenship and have mitigating circumstances brought forward, should they so wish. A range of measures has been issued in the guidance published this week.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments in my name in this group, and to support generally the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson, who have already spoken on theirs.

My amendments are Amendments 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 25. Amendment 4 is designed to increase the time to a year. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs, numbers and funds were all understood by each of the bodies concerned—authorities and taxpayers—that fund the asylum system, and that they were itemised and publicly announced. Amendments 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are designed to tighten and clarify the provisions governing age and to tighten the provisions governing status, about which my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Murray have already spoken. Amendment 25 is designed to make entitlement transparent, by bringing the identity documents needed in line with existing immigration arrangements.

Amendment 4 would require one year to pass before the Secretary of State was required to provide for family reunion. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs and numbers in the arrangements for funding and accommodating family members under the Bill were fully understood and that we knew who was funding the Bill, whether already hard-pressed councils, the Exchequer or both were paying, and whether people and families covered by the Bill would have priority over other applicants for local authority housing and public services.

The other amendments aim to ensure that those covered are eligible to entitlement on clear grounds. We need a Bill to be clear about the grounds of age and status, and in accord with UK law.

My final amendment in this group, Amendment 25, aims to underpin the security arrangements for entitlement by way of specific requirements for identity under the Identity Documents Act 2010.

All amendments therefore aim to ensure that, given the very large and growing number of applicants each year, such a significant transfer of population—the entire family for each applicant, which has serious consequences, including financial and practical—is limited strictly to the immediate family, children under 18 at the time the Bill passes and parents of such children covered under the Bill. Even then, the potential cost will be significant, and it will add to the costs and demands on the already overstretched asylum system, the first focus of which must be on asylum seekers themselves. The priority must be to ensure that applications are processed quickly and efficiently. I am very glad the present Government are continuing their work to hurry up the processing.

Resources should therefore be spent on those seeking asylum. We should seek to introduce the necessary rules to supervise, limit and identify those strictly covered under the Bill and those who believe that they have an entitlement. There are complex arrangements here and they need to be clarified.

Local communities and organisations should be consulted, because we do not want to see unpleasantness and objections from local communities unprepared for housing groups of asylum seekers in small villages or towns across the country.

We have no certain idea of the numbers, and I would be grateful—I am waiting with interest—to hear the noble Baroness let us know what they are. However, we know how many people made asylum applications in the year ending September 2024—77,066 over the 12-month period, relating to 99,700 people. If the Bill proceeds and the numbers expand, we will have no idea of how many family members will be covered by the Bill in addition to those already covered in law.

We know that the costs are high. The asylum system itself costs £5 billion. It is the highest level of spending on record, and it is up by a third on the previous year. The costs of the UK asylum system were £5.38 billion in November 2024—the highest, as I have said, and 12 times higher than when these statistics were kept in this format in 2013-14.

The Home Office figure for asylum costs covers direct cash support and accommodation, wider staffing and other related migration and border activity, but not the operation of channel-crossing interceptions to the UK. We need to take account of the additional costs this measure would put on the system, in terms of both compliance and money, and whether this will take away from the rapid processing of existing asylum claims, which should be and rightly is one of the priorities this Government are focusing on. Adding family members could increase the number by a factor of anything from three upwards.

To conclude, there is no appetite in this country for further immigration of that magnitude. Our housing, education and health services are creaking at the seams, with continued pressures adding to the burden they and taxpayers face. We have already seen that the Government intend to raise tax even further, to the tune of £25 billion a year. Total immigration was in the region of 700,000 last year. Voters want it brought down.

For this reason, I urge the Government to accept my amendments and the other amendments in this group if they strengthen what I am proposing. It is in line with the Government’s promise to bring immigration down. For those for whom a statement is made that family reunion can take place, the amendments I propose will curtail it to immediate family. They require clarity and tighten up the arrangements for identifying those covered. They are in line with current UK arrangements. They would ensure that public authorities and voters are aware of the cost and that there is more time for authorities, local communities and the Government to ensure that nothing is rushed, because it will end up being a mess.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendment 19. Like my noble friend Lord Jackson, I apologise that I was not able to be here at Second Reading. I simply echo his earlier comments without going into any detail. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for tabling Amendment 19 because I have a question and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were able to address the drafting.

Earlier today, I made the familiar comment in a Second Reading that, however good a Bill is, the devil is in the detail. I would like to address just one part of the detail to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment 19 seeks to

“Clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (b)”.

That paragraph refers to

“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—”

and it gives some exemptions. Rightly, of course, it talks about the best interests of a child. That is the crucial issue underpinning, I am sure, what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wishes to do in bringing forward the Bill.

However, I am concerned about the drafting of Clause 1(5)(b)(iii). It applies to

“the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person”.

This is a hugely wide lack of definition about who we are talking about. I am assuming we are talking in the first terms about a child. The person might be the child, but who is the other person?

It goes far wider than just a family connection: there is financial dependency. I feel that that particular part of this clause requires further investigation. I do not propose to extend the time today on that—I have some ideas myself about how the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, might be able to better present that part of this clause—but as it stands, I certainly would not be able to support that part of the Bill.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I have added our names. They would ensure that in the Bill we have a statutory procedure for assessing the impact on the economy in general on consumers and the choices they have to make, and on the producers.

The Bill poses potential costs for producers, which are likely to have an impact on the economy of which they form part. Even though the general scope, as set out in Clause 1, seems sensible and reasonable and appears to reflect consumer protection arrangements which have proven their worth over decades, there is in this very slim Bill less clarity as to what the precise requirement may be, or where precisely liability for transgression lies. It is something of a leap in the dark. Lawyers will be needed to work out who exactly may be covered by the provisions, sanctions and punishments, given that the Bill will touch on many features of production and marketing, and many sorts of person will be involved in the process.

The question really is, if I am an entrepreneur or a small business innovator, do I risk my small pot of savings and those chipped in by my family to get the idea from the drawing board—possibly in the garage—off the ground, into the retail outlet and into use? Sir Hermann Hauser, the technologist and entrepreneur who set up Acorn in Cambridge, did that in the 1970s. He once told me that when you start a business like his—and most start in the garage—they do not have any money, and with what they have, they want reasonable certainty that the law will stay the same, that it will do what it says on the tin, that they can buy the stock they need for the component parts, they can use their judgment within reason about whether a product is safe, and they can take a risk. They have good arrangements for risk assessment, and our law also has pretty good arrangements, as well as for consumer protection. But if—and this is the danger of the Bill—there are open-ended powers, and there is the possibility for a regulation-mad Government to make constant changes, and if, as I have spoken about before, so I will not come back to it, EU law, which is based on the precautionary principle, is mirrored or otherwise imposed, we will be causing greater uncertainty and there will be a greater possibility of costs and of lost stock, because it goes out of date. Such people will also not have time to develop their product properly, bring it to market and make a profit. They may go bankrupt, thanks to a raft of new provisions and new uncertainties.

These three amendments—Amendment 103, on consumer choice and an impact assessment; Amendment 104, on an impact assessment on the whole economy; and Amendment 104B, on an impact assessment on SMEs to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within six months—will help us find out exactly what the impact of these rules are, even if we do not know what they will be when we set out on this road. Successful businesses—small, medium and big—and the consumers who buy their products and services, both in this country and overseas, are the beating heart of our economic life. If businesses are to flourish, the rules need to be clear from the start. Compliance needs to be affordable and the rules must encourage innovation, entrepreneurship and risk-taking.

Most businesses in this country are small—there are 5.51 million of them, as we have heard—with zero to 49 employees. There are only 40,000 businesses that count as medium-sized, with 50 to 250 employees. These small and medium-sized businesses provide most of the employment of people, but the vast majority of them—3.1 million—are sole traders. November’s House of Commons analysis, which is the most up-to-date analysis that I have found, gives the figures, with SMEs accounting for 99% of the business population, providing 60% of UK employment and 48% of business turnover. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out, they are far less able to bear the costs of the regulatory steamroller that may face us. This is one of the big problems that we hear about all the time from small producers and entrepreneurs: the costs of compliance and of dealing with the uncertainties this brings in. Even the bigger businesses, which provide 40% of the jobs and almost half the turnover, also have to pay—I was told by an NHS trust—almost 18% of their overheads.

Whether or not this Bill directly affects the product market—it does—or the service market, we are a service economy. This is a product regulation Bill, but most services use products. Let us take the hospitality trade: it needs to buy products to ply its trade and make money. Cabbies need to buy cars. Every single service—except financial services, perhaps, which is indirectly affected—will be affected by this Bill. It will have a very big impact on the whole economy. If we price risk-taking and innovation out of the product market, on top of the costs of employment—including through higher tax and higher employees’ NICs—UK small businesses will shrink or close. Jobs will be lost. We shall go the way the French went, with their high- tax protectionist model and a centralised structure in which the small challenger is driven out of the game—and with it, the hope of keeping a competitive economy open to new entrants. That is what has happened in France in the post-war years and is now cast in stone by the EU model, with ever bigger national, transnational or multinational corporations having a monopoly and driving up prices for the consumer while driving choices down.

I fear that this is an alien model to our market economy of competitive small businesses that can have a go without fear or favour under the protection of good law. We cannot afford to lose jobs or businesses and raise prices. Our productivity in GDP per hour is already lower than that of our most similar G7 neighbours, France and Germany. I am sorry that this figure is in dollars, although I am sure that noble Lords are very dollar literate: they earn $92 and $95 respectively per hour, while we earn only $79 per hour. If the Government want higher productivity and higher growth, they need simpler and clearer rule books; I must add that that will not happen by mimicking Brussels’ notorious system, whether it is an imported version or a home-based mirror image of what goes on over there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 110, 111 and 112, standing in my name. Clause 9 is a skeleton clause, as has been pointed out by the DPRRC, which recommended its removal—a point that may have been made a few times over the course of this Committee, often by me. In giving this degree of power to repeal existing legislation around consumer protection and metrology regulations by negative procedure, the Government have argued that aspects of the regulatory regime may need to be updated swiftly and frequently. However, they have failed to explain why they should be done with little scrutiny. In their response to the DPRRC, they suggested that it is because existing legislation has proven ineffective at times. The most recent consultation on the Bill suggested that 87% of respondents supported reviewing inspection powers, but it is one thing to review powers and another to have the power to completely repeal existing legislation and replace it with whatever an undefined—that word again—relevant authority feels is necessary.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his thoughts on Amendment 110. He is not in his place but I wish him a happy birthday, as I am sure most Members of the Committee do too. I am very grateful for his opinions, some of which I am incorporating in my next remarks. On Amendment 110, he pointed out that the Government are proposing to take the power to repeal Part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. If they were to do so, we would lose Section 2, which sets out primarily that the Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing goods that are safe. We would also lose Section 19, which defines “safe”. Section 19(1)(c) includes that “safe” means,

“there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum, that … the keeping, use or consumption of the goods”

will

“cause the death of, or any personal injury to, any person”,

and that “unsafe” should be “construed accordingly”. The Bill does not make the equivalent provision: “reducing or mitigating risks” in Clause 1 is lesser than “safe” as defined, and the 1987 legislation has a long history of implementation, interpretation and enforcement.

At this late stage of the Bill, the question is: is it His Majesty’s Government’s intention to repeal Sections 2 and 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987? If it is not, we can assess the overall legislative framework which will result. If it is, we will need to revisit this issue when looking again at the purpose of the Bill. If His Majesty’s Government say they will decide later and seek to avoid overlap, we should again look at how this Bill and how the Consumer Protection Act 1987 may overlap, and consider whether the continuation of a defined requirement for safe products should be included in the Bill.

The other two amendments follow a very similar vein. I think I have said enough, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I support this. It is important that we do not give the Minister powers to repeal one of the best-known Acts, which many consumers in this country have had experience of. We all know it is a flagship Act, and it has been proven in the decades since 1987.

I strongly support my noble friend’s proposals to remove the concern about giving the Government the power to do away with these protections which are in those sections of the Act. The meaning of “safety” is particularly relevant and needs to be very clear for businesses and consumers alike. Were we to go along this route, heaven knows what a Government could do. It is wrong for this House to allow that to happen; it is constitutionally out of order that such a well-known piece of legislation—which is so important to our economy and those who make our economy—can be done away with using sleight of hand and without any proper scrutiny or discussion.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I disagree with her. From the debates we have already had, there is a recognition that what businesses need is certainty and for government to move quickly when it is clear that action needs to be taken to protect the consumer and the other aims of the Bill.

I accept that there has been criticism by your Lordships’ Select Committees and by noble Lords here about the skeletal nature of the Bill, but the point is that we need flexibility to keep pace with fast movement in this consumer area. That is the reason why the Bill is constructed the way it is. I will come on to the Consumer Protection Act, but I hope I can reassure noble Lords on that.

The Government are of course looking very carefully at the reports of both the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee and we are reflecting on them. Clearly, as I have said, we are trying to get the right balance between proper parliamentary accountability and the need for flexibility and clarity for all the people affected by the legislation. For instance, in Clause 9 itself, subsection (4) enables us to make minor technical adjustments to ensure coherence across the legislative framework without the need to introduce separate primary legislation for every amendment. I have to say that a general consequential power is typical and required to keep the law functional. If you remove that power, it would mean new primary legislation for adjustments that are primarily procedural or corrective in nature.

Also, the Bill includes safeguards to ensure that the use of the Clause 9 powers is proportionate and justified, with changes to primary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. Of course, this means debates in both Houses.

As far as the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is concerned, I of course accept the importance of that legislation. As noble Lords will know, Part II of that Act grants powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure the safety of products, but the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 are intended to replace those powers. So, when product regulations are made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part II of that Act in order to avoid duplication.

Likewise, Part IV of that Act sets out provision for the enforcement of regulations made under Part II. So, because the Bill includes provision in Clause 3 relating to the enforcement of product regulations made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part IV of that Act when new product regulations are made. Included here are the powers for enforcement authorities to investigate and seize goods that have not yet reached the market and the power for customs officers to detain goods.

Part V of the Consumer Protection Act contains miscellaneous and supplemental provisions that may also require amendment when new regulations are introduced. There is no attempt here, nor any desire on the part of the Government, to undermine the Act fundamentally. We simply have to make adjustments in the light of this legislation.

I have listened to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. As I say, we are considering very carefully the reports of those two Select Committees; clearly, we will reflect on them between now and Report.