Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, this is a difficult and controversial Bill, not only because of the substantial amount of delegated legislation, the problem of skeleton legislation and the lack of adequate pre-legislative scrutiny, as committees of this House have pointed out and as the evidence presented by lawyers and academics, including at the think tank where I am research director, also points out; and not only because of the magnitude of the proposed change and the potential impact to which your Lordships have drawn attention—even though this has no electoral mandate, which would have allowed for pre-legislative consultation and debate nationally, which is not guaranteed by opinion polls. Most important of all, the Bill fails to recognise the nature of and basis for the law in the fundamental matter of life and death.

Once assisting suicide is allowed, it becomes impossible to detect cases where more than assistance is provided and someone is in effect induced to kill themselves. This is a criminal act, but under this Bill it becomes impossible to police. As the Chief Coroner has recently pointed out, the Bill removes any realistic prospect of an effective inquest. The Bill also ignores the moral and religious underpinning of a historic tradition based on the principle that the life of each person is sacred, irrespective of how much or how little value may be put on it by others, or the state, or whether that life has a cost to others. Without such a premise we risk a descent into barbarism, where human lives may be done away with as fast as battery chickens: by category, by age, by disability, or on account of mental and psychiatric condition. Indeed, the mask proposed by the dramatic change in the law in the Bill—the veneer of strict conditionality and the obligation for the person himself or herself to want to commit suicide and prove consent—reveals an ignorance of the very nature of our society.

Society is based on kinship, on interdependency, on networks of support, both in the private and the public sphere, and ultimately on trust. It is underwritten by tradition and conventions which for centuries have been given the protections of the law. At the basis of this whole structure, though it is unfashionable to say so, is the conviction that human life is sacred. Despite the Bill’s conditions, its alleged limitations and restrictions, it strikes a hammer blow at a civilisation supported until now by law, custom, kinship and trust throughout the centuries, whether in peace or war, but now struggling to keep afloat.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will just intervene on this interesting exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friends on Amendment 203A. The question this raises—I say this really as a question—is: is it not the case that people in this country who want our borders strengthened and immigration controlled may perhaps consider that convicted offenders from overseas who are not British citizens should not enjoy the same rights, privileges and protections after a conviction as a UK citizen should?

I understand that we are bound by international regulations and international law. None the less, as my noble friend has said, there have been derogations from the law, not least by Germany, which has in fact withdrawn legal aid from those appealing. The French Government, in defiance of their own courts, very often deport overseas offenders. Therefore, although it is a very persuasive intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, there is a wider context in which this group of amendments is being spoken to.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and shall give one example as to why automatic removal regardless of the circumstances is so wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Harper—whom I was lucky to work with many years ago in the coalition Government and am glad to see here—raised a point that a number of other Lords have also mentioned: people who have come to this country and have been afforded protection by it should understand the consequences if they breach the law. That is an understandable point to make.

However, I will give one example. Take a small child who came to the UK, whose parents became British citizens and who had assumed that they were in fact a British citizen, who had committed a crime and was sentenced to prison—and, under this amendment, was therefore subject to automatic removal—but the national referral mechanism competent authority later found that they were a victim of modern slavery for the purpose of forced criminality. That person would have no right of appeal, none of the circumstances of the case would be considered and they would be deported automatically to a country that they have never been to and where people speak a language that they do not understand. It would be wholly wrong for that to happen without any mechanism for a court or tribunal to consider it. I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and oppose these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships’ House too long with this amendment because it is straightforward. It relates to the piece of the jigsaw that is missing in respect of foreign national students with visas to study in the United Kingdom. The background of my amendment is the very serious occasions on which public disorder has occurred, in London and other parts of the country, arising from the Israel-Gaza conflict, which dates from October 2023.

This has obviously been a phenomenon across the world of student bodies, whether it is Harvard, Columbia in New York, in Australia or across Europe, protesting against what they perceive as wrong policy pursued by a particular country—not just the Israel-Gaza situation but other contentious political issues. Other jurisdictions have co-ordinated their response to public disorder which has occurred with student bodies in a better way. In other words, they have monitored whether those students have properly abided by the restrictions and obligations put on them when they apply for and are successfully granted a visa.

Students and those with educational visas in higher education are not in any sense sui generis. They do not have carve-outs and are not given a free pass. Indeed, for the purposes of any transgression of criminal law, public disorder and other issues, they are as much subject to statute as anyone else: the Immigration Act 1971, the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Immigration Act 2016. As I referenced in the earlier group, if they are from the European Union, they are also subject to restrictions in their conduct, essentially around visa breaches and immigration law violations, but for our purposes today, I am focusing on criminal activity. That is quite a high bar for those students, in that it is deemed to pose a threat “to the public good”, which is the wording used in primary and secondary legislation—statutory instruments.

It is unusual that I am praising the Government slightly today, but I know that they are mindful of the concerns that the general public have on this issue and that they are seeking, as did the previous Government, to address and ameliorate abuses of the student visa system. We accept in good faith that they are seeking to tackle those egregious abuses, but, to my mind, the piece of the puzzle that is missing is that there is not proper co-ordination in respect of student visas. Therefore, it is important to collect the data on those student visas which are applied for by students who are subject to criminal sanction, not just being arrested but charged and, perhaps, subject to criminal penalty, including, of course, incarceration in the prison estate.

It is for that reason that I think my amendment fits well with this Bill. I am not saying that every foreign student is a criminal—far from it. We welcome the many thousands of students who come to our country to study, some of whom stay here to further their careers and add to our economy and our civic life, et cetera. But there will be some who come here and commit criminal offences. To my mind—I echo the astute comments of my noble friend Lord Harper—you have an obligation, if you apply for a visa and come here, to behave yourself, to behave in a civilized manner, to abide by the law, to work hard and to abide by the conditions of your visa and wider obligations. If you fail to discharge that, particularly, for instance, by shouting antisemitic abuse on a hate march in London or anywhere else, that is unacceptable. If you are subject to criminal sanction and penalty, there is a strong case that your visa should be revoked and you should be removed from this country.

However, the first step should be that that information should be collected and collated in a way which is transparent and open, so that the state and the criminal justice system has an opportunity to make a value judgment on your behaviour, as someone who is not a British citizen and who has been invited here in good faith to behave as a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen. For those reasons, I commend the amendment in my name, support Amendment 141A from my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and look forward to the Minister’s answer in due course.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments proposes the means to make transparent one of the constituent parts of the high immigration levels that the Government aim to reduce. The amendments propose making transparent the data on the numbers granted student visas and the numbers of dependents, capping the numbers—in the case of the amendments that will follow, Amendments 198 and 199—and dealing with those who offend and the home countries of offenders.

I shall focus on my Amendment 141A, which proposes an annual statement on the number of visas given to overseas students and their dependents, because they contribute significantly to the overall immigration numbers, on which this Government and the previous one have concentrated in order to get them down. The evidence that we have is piecemeal. It covers a range of periods and categories and comes from the Home Office, the ONS and the Higher Education Statistics Authority, but all of the evidence indicates that overseas students’ visas and those issued for dependents constitute a large cohort of the immigration numbers.

In the previous academic year ending September 2024, there were 732,285 overseas students at higher education institutions in the UK. That is almost 25% of the total student population. Around one in 10 came from the EU, while 90% of them came from further across the world. Although the total was down from the very high period of 2022-23—a record high, as it happens—these figures from 2023-24 are still the second-highest ever for overseas students and their dependents.

We want to find out what the top countries are. India was top of the list, sending 107,500—almost nine times the number from India in 2017-18. China, which sent the most students for 10 years, is now in second place; it sent 98,400. There have been rapid increases from Nigeria, which is in third place. The figures for Nigeria will come up in my notes in a moment, so I will come back to them, but it is in third place.

Now we have another set of figures, though, from the Home Office. I want to talk about them. They give an indication of the numbers for the year ending in June this year—the year in which the Labour Government have been in power. From them, we discovered that the number of student visas granted for the year ending June 2025 was 436,000; that was higher than the average from 2012-21, which was an average of 305,000, although it was much smaller than in the peak year of 2023, which was the year when 650,000 student visas were granted. During that time, there were 18,000 dependents—a far lower figure than the 154,000 who came in before that. That is, I think, due to the previous Government’s attempts to curb the figures.

What we see from this is that student visas for overseas students still run at a very high rate. If we take the figures for the year ending June and multiply them, say, by three, we are looking at well over a million people in the country on overseas student visas. For these reasons, it would be very helpful for Parliament, and indeed the public, to know on an annual basis the number of overseas student visas granted, and the numbers granted to dependents, and whether that is increasing or falling. That kind of information in an accessible and consistent form will help identify the nature and scale of the question, whether it is indeed a serious problem and, if so, how we can deal with it.

--- Later in debate ---

As noble Lords will know, the Immigration Rules already provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

On welcoming overseas students, I accept that good students who come here lawfully can be a great bonus. Indeed, I have had the benefit of teaching such students, and I had a great time with bright students. But does the Minister agree that many UK universities are now dependent on overseas applications and overseas student fees, and that this can have a detrimental effect on the cultural life of the university and perhaps on its overall quality? In some institutions, it seems that the courses offered and their quality have changed as universities race to increase their fee income through a higher overseas student ratio. I am not saying that this is true of all universities, and there are other ways of obtaining income. It requires more work by universities, but many have pioneered other ways of getting that income by setting up overseas campuses.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

It is not really within my brief to comment on the financing of universities, so the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not go too deeply into that. However, I can be clear about the grounds on which a student’s permission to stay may be cancelled, and this relates to some of the points the noble Baroness has made: where the person’s sponsorship or endorsement has been withdrawn, for example because they do not have the required knowledge level of the English language; where the person does not start their course with their sponsor—that is important because, as universities know, people sign up but do not turn up; where the person ceases to study, which can include no longer attending their course, completing it at an earlier date or the start date of their course being delayed for more than 28 days; where the sponsor loses their licence—this is important too—or transfers the business, so if they are not a serious higher education institution and are not sustainable; or where the business for which the person studies is transferred to another business or institution and that business or institution, for example, fails to apply for a sponsor’s licence.

If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I do not feel I can comment on higher education funding, but we think we have robust arrangements for removing people and cancelling student visas where there are the sort of problems I have set out, including those to which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred in relation to crime and disorder.

Foreign nationals—including students, of course—who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced, and that, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation. Before coming to your Lordships’ House, I was deeply involved for many years with the Prison Service, and I saw at first hand the problems of not deporting foreign national offenders and what that was doing to not just immigration policy but the prison capacity crisis. I spent several years working on that policy with the Ministry of Justice, so I understand that problem very well and take very seriously the need to get better at it.

On the specifics of the amendments about publishing data on these topics, the Home Office already publishes a vast amount of migration statistics, as your Lordships know, including information on visas, returns and detentions. If I may say so, too much of that information does not play a large enough role in an often fevered public debate which is often based on rumours rather than detailed facts. The official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review, in line with the code of practice for statistics. This ensures that we identify changing needs for new statistics to support public understanding. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, have made suggestions, and they may want to continue to press that case.

The Government recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public about the numbers and types of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK, what happens to foreign national offenders after they have been convicted—I have already stressed my interest in this subject—and what happens to them after they have completed their sentences. We understand the importance of this information. The department is assessing what more can be done to improve the processes for collecting and verifying relevant data on foreign national offenders and their offences and to establish a more regular means of placing that data in the public domain. By the end of 2025—so, again, not far away—if this work progresses as planned, the Home Office proposes to publish more detailed statistical reporting on foreign national offenders subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK.

Before I sit down, I shall make one other comment in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, about the agreement between the UK and France. It remains firmly in place, and we shall continue to work with the French Government in all their various forms. On the basis of the assurances that I have given, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I regret having to take so much time, but I wanted to explain why the other Members who support these amendments could not speak today.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 154A seeks to extend the conditions for someone subject to immigration controls by adding a proposed new paragraph (c) to Section 15(1) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. I am not a lawyer and apologise for my slowness in working out how you refer to a subsection of a section. It deals with the rules for employers or businesses using delivery riders covered by this Act. It aims to ensure that all who deliver and make their living from transporting goods, meals and other matters, whatever the vehicle they drive, have a full driving licence, and that the businesses which employ, contract or otherwise with the bikers will be held accountable if they do not have the necessary driving licence.

I tabled the amendment because, as they stand, the regulations governing e-bikes are complex and difficult to operate. They involve a level of commitment and time by the police forces of the UK which, under the stringencies, operational priorities and finances of today, they are unlikely to be able to afford. A report from the Guardian of 4 September illustrates some of these difficulties, referring to two police constables from the City of London cycle response unit. It reveals that, for e-cycles, particularly those used for delivery, there is often a breach of the conditions for using them. The report highlighted that changes are made to an e-bike to empower it to travel at speeds of up to 60 miles an hour. They are finding these and impounding them.

This is certainly a problem, but so are the routine offences committed daily by delivery bikes, which make life for people using the pavement and public spaces—whether parks, gardens, commons, greens, pieces or streets in the towns and cities of this country—dangerous. These bikes career at speed on pavements and cycleways, with no front or rear lights at night. Whether on the streets or the pavement, they continue to break the Highway Code. I have had a very instructive weekend on the Highway Code, which I recommend to your Lordships. Many, but not all, delivery riders are from overseas. We must presume that they have the right to work under Section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

That also applies to self-employed contractors, because it makes it unlawful to employ an individual who does not have the right to work in the UK, and engaging a contractor falls under the definition of employing for the purposes of the Act. The section prohibits someone employing an adult subject to immigration control if the person has not been given leave to enter or remain, the leave is invalid or out of date or the subject has been prevented from accepting employment.

My amendment specifically adds the prohibition on employing or contracting with drivers or bikers without a full driving licence, whether delivery is made by a motorbike or an e-cycle or the normal motorised ways of doing so. The aim is to ensure that they have a full driving licence and are covered by licence rules. The law already obliges deliverers who drive a car, a lorry or a motorcycle to have a valid licence, as well as registering, insuring and taxing the vehicle and getting an MoT, and some, indeed, have the courier addition, but this amendment extends to those who ride or drive an e-bicycle to do so—to deliver goods, groceries, meals, whatever—whether the vehicle is powered by combustion engine, electric battery or hybrid.

As matters stand, the rules are that anyone over 14 can ride an electric bike without a driving licence and without the bike being registered, taxed or insured, provided it is an electrically assisted pedal bike—an EAPC. To qualify as such a bike, it must have pedals that can be used to propel. It can have more than two wheels, but its electric motor must have a continuous rated output of no more than 250 watts, and it must not be able to propel the bike when it is travelling at more than 15.5 miles per hour. That is, the battery must not be such that it can power the bike at more than 15.5 miles per hour, although, if you are a speedy cyclist, you are allowed to do so by pedalling. The bike must show the continuous rate of power output of the manufacturer.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I simply want to ask the noble Baroness whether she can explain what the very detailed description she is giving has to do with border security, immigration or asylum.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I will come to that point, if I may. Anyway, there are very stringent rules governing these bikes, and they are all available. If your bike does not meet them, you have to register for a full scooter licence.

To answer the noble Lord’s intervention, for which I am very grateful, many delivery bikers come from overseas. I said at the start that we presume that they are covered by the rules under the 2006 Act. What I want to do is to add, for those people who are specifically covered by these immigration controls who drive these delivery bikes, that their employers will face an additional requirement if they come from overseas, which I think is germane to the debate we are having on borders, because many delivery bikers come from overseas and are subject to immigration controls.

If I may conclude and explain why I think it is perhaps necessary for the Home Office to consider this and take it on board, I go back to the police constable who says that illegal bikes are, in effect, motorbikes.

“These people have passed no test, have no road training and don’t have the road skills. They … ride around without insurance, tax, the bike not conforming to lights and everything else it should conform to, it’s not registered with the DVLA, all these things”.


One of the instances he dealt with was indeed an overseas biker who came from Bangladesh and had had his engine changed. The PC said that the problem was mainly to do with delivery bikes, but it could be with other bikes.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord German, for mentioning the very unfortunate accident that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suffered. I was not aware of that. Many noble Lords will be well aware of the fearless campaigning on humanitarian issues over many years by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, often in very dangerous situations in various countries, so it is somewhat ironic that he suffered an injury at Victoria station, I think. I hope that it was not serious, and I very much look forward to seeing him back in his place as quickly as possible.

I want to speak to my Amendment 154, and I am also happy to support every other amendment in the group apart from Amendment 154A. I do so because last year, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I was fortunate enough to serve on the committee on modern slavery to which the noble Baroness referred, which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord will know that we will examine the issues following the debate today; that is the purpose of Committee. I will reflect on what has been said by all noble Lords and examine how we can meet individuals’ desire to collect further information to assess the situation, at the same time as not putting undue burdens on the system as a whole. I hope that is of assistance to the noble Lord and indeed to my noble friend Lord Rees.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I seek clarification on something the Minister said. He told the Committee that they were seeking to address some of the problems that my amendment raised through other ways, including through the DVLA, the Home Office and certain measures. But will they include drawing in to those other measures those categories of delivery bike that do not now require any papers or licence and may have been changed to empower them to go far beyond the permitted 15.5 miles per hour? We have no way of knowing that unless our police forces are out on the streets as a response unit, like those police in the City of London, and impounding them—which is very heavy on police time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a number of issues. I start with the question of illegal employment and working. The Government are very exercised to ensure that, both in the Bill and in regular enforcement now being undertaken, we crack down on illegal employment, which effectively undercuts legitimate businesses, exploits individuals in that illegal employment and is not a good use for society as a whole, as a contributory factor. We are very focused on that, and the Bill focuses on a large amount of those elements.

Separately, the noble Baroness raises areas outside my direct responsibility, which are Department for Transport-related issues about enforcement and regulations. I will draw those remarks to the attention of the Transport Minister, who will be able to reflect on them and who is also exercised about the very issues she mentions.

The noble Baroness will also know, I hope, that in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come before this House shortly, there are also measures to improve police powers on seizure of bikes, rather than prosecution of individuals, where there are digressions from the law. That means going through traffic lights, going on pavements, speeding and all those things where the police, rather than having to give a warning, will potentially now be able to seize an electric vehicle used in those ways under the Crime and Policing Bill. So the three different elements are all there.

In this current piece of legislation, the amendment the noble Baroness has put forward does not meet the requirements I am seeking to achieve. With that, I hope noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in favour of the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. It seems to me that this is a perfectly proportionate amendment, in that it seeks to build on the Government’s own Clause 48, to amend Article 33(2) of the refugee convention, by including there offenders against the Sexual Offences Act 2003, explaining further how this would operate and be extended.

My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment develops that further by proposing that those who commit immigration offences as now defined in the 1971 Act will be deemed to have committed a serious offence and will therefore fall under the provisions of this measure. It is a perfectly proportionate amendment and, although noble Lords may be concerned that there are loopholes which mean that some applicants will rightly be here because of their claims, they can take comfort in the refugee convention saying that they need to come directly to the UK from a country where their life or liberty is in danger. So that part of their immigration—entering the country without leave to remain—would also be deemed an offence. Therefore I support the amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness and say again to the Minister, who will probably curse me for it, that there is no data and we need that data to understand the size of the problem. It must be not just pure data about age. It must also be about the response when children or young people are placed in the wrong one, and what support they need. I will leave it there.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments of my noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Murray. They are interesting amendments because they seek to tackle the same problem by different means. The aim is to have accurate information about age and to require that it be secured.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

We cannot accept a situation that may have existed 80 years ago and assume that it is applicable to today. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, said, things can change pretty quickly, at the snap of a finger—and things are changing. Our world is dominated by authoritarian leaders, corruption and other forces. We cannot simply stick to the ground as it was after the Second World War, which is what we are doing. We have to move. We do not want to destroy the fundamental benefits of a lot of these treaties, but we must make sure that they have credibility with the public. I can assure noble Lords that, if they go out on to the streets and tell people that we have to support the 1951 refugee convention, they will find that it means nothing to the lives of ordinary people. That is the mistake that Parliament and the Government have been making for the last 20 years.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 203J, in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which has been so ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I was glad of the response from other noble Lords in the Chamber to my noble friend’s very constructive suggestion. Across the Committee, there is recognition that we have a problem. I know that in the House of Commons this is now recognised across the Benches, and I have heard it discussed on these Benches with a great sense of a constructive approach to try to deal with things as they are. That is the approach of my noble friend.

We are looking at figures and costs which, as other noble Lords have said, are really very high. We know that 111,084 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025. That is 14% more than in the year ending June 2024 and 8% more than the previous peak of 103,000 in 2002. Of asylum claims, 55,700 come from people arriving on small boats or through other illegal routes. Of these, 43,000 arrive on small boat crossings and 12,100 through such routes as the back of a lorry, shipping containers or without relevant documentation. The overall figures include around 41,000 people who have come to the UK on a visa or other leave—an authorised route—and who seek asylum.

We are dealing with two broad categories of claimant: people who are coming through irregular routes and those who are coming through legal routes, all of whom claim asylum, or did so in these numbers in 2025. The people who come by small boats or in other ways—lorries or shipping containers—normally come directly from France, from where they make dreadfully dangerous crossings across the high seas, where after arrival, for the year ending in June, we see the figures for those claiming asylum.

Why do they come to the UK? Noble Lords have spoken about the many reasons why they come here. One of the legal answers is that, under the UK’s immigration law, they would be deemed to have committed an offence for not having the necessary authorisation to enter as stipulated under the Immigration Act 1971 and would therefore be deemed to have committed an offence. But the arrangements in Section 31 of the Immigration Act 1999, as my noble friend Lord Murray already explained, are based on Article 31 of the refugee convention. That convention suggests that, where their life or freedom is threatened and they present themselves to the authorities and show good cause for the illegal entry, as has been stated, or if the person stopped in a safe country before coming to the UK—this is in subsection 2—they must show that they could not reasonably be expected to have sought protection under the refugee convention.

We know that just under half of claims—48%—which received an initial decision in the year ending June 2025 were granted. Although that figure is a smaller proportion in comparison to the year ending June 2024, when it was 58%, or below the peak of 77% in September 2022, it is still around half of all people claiming asylum. In France, 27% of claims are granted—this may be one other reason why they could travel on; it will be for the courts to decide under present law whether it is a good reason. Of course, these figures will change when there are appeals or reviews.

My noble friend Lord Murray has spoken about the legal context and the initial meaning of the refugee convention and the relevant Article 31. I will just say a word about the historical convention. It was in the post-Second World War era. This was another time and another world; we were dealing with different problems during the post-war settlement of Europe, when many of the borders had been redrawn and people had suffered terribly under the occupation by Germany, and many millions had died in the Soviet Union. We are dealing in the refugee convention with questions arising from a war in which Britain played a leading part. She had been to the forefront to defend her own sovereignty and, as Churchill always said and all parties agreed, to restore the liberty of European countries threatened, or indeed subjugated, by Germany before 1945. We can understand the historical context, and I accept fully the legal context which my noble friend Lord Murray outlined. However, because of the changed interpretation, the law as we now have it is applied to facilitate global migration in an era of mass travel, much of it with economic aims.

As I mentioned, noble Lords on other Benches have drawn attention to the legacy which we are dealing with and how we tackle it. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is offered. It is in line with government policy not to abandon international conventions, but it restores a meaning and, to my mind, is a lifeline towards saving the constitutional democracy of this country, which we see, night after night on our screens, under threat because people in this country who are law-abiding and who have welcomed refugees over centuries—far more than other countries—really cannot bear the brunt of it any more. I beg the Minister to accept Amendment 203J.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

On this side of the House, we have always taken the view believed, as my noble friend and others have said—and I know that we have previously debated trade union activity, right back to the Tolpuddle Martyrs—that it is important for workers to be able to organise in their own interests to improve their working conditions, and pay in particular. But it seems odd that, in its haste to support the demands of the trade unions, this provision will remove proper, well-organised trade union supervision of industrial disputes. So, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, because the case has not been made, it will backfire, and you will have disorder and an acrimonious relationship in some of these industrial disputes. The Minister should think very carefully about whether, with regard to Clause 72, this is a sensible way forward to remove the provision for the proper, orderly, well-organised supervision of industrial disputes and strike action.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I will say a word in particular about some of the amendments. On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would remove Clause 59, people in the country will ask, “How can it be that, in a democracy, a payment is automatically deducted from membership fees for a political fund?” That is a question about democracy in the workplace. How is it that it can go—if it does go—to one political party? I take the point about affiliated unions and the different purposes for which the political funds are used, but we are being asked as a Parliament to pass legislation that has a direct impact on the party opposite: the Government. I cannot think that there is a similar arrangement by trade unions for any other political party, but I am willing to be put wise. So, it is a sectional problem that we are dealing with.

All the amendments in this group seek to tackle workplace democracy under the Bill, which would use the law to promote the powers and funds of trade unions, despite their shrinking membership. Some 11% of them are in private sector businesses and command practically the whole productive economy of this country, and 30% are in the public sector—so 20% overall. Yet these unions are being pivoted into power with automatic funding from their members for political purposes. I think it is wrong that this should happen and be a matter of law for us to pass.

In the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would remove Clause 59, we see the automatic payment deducted from the membership fees. That undermines any claim the Government make that the Bill is good for workers. It is the sort of sharp practice that is not only discredited in other walks of life but, in this context, unless it omits Clause 59, it brings disrepute on the unions, the Government and this Parliament. Otherwise, people in the country will rightly feel that the Labour Government of July 2024 has in the matter of so-called rights used the Bill, and other measures, to pivot one minority in this country to a position of dominance in our economy and work- force. That will not be regarded as a fair position in this country.

I also, for the same reasons, support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, to omit Clauses 77 and 78 because, in the interests of transparency, working people and trade union members need to see in the annual returns what the political funds are spent on. The noble Lord referred to some of the political purposes that they are used for. Of course there are others, and they may be very good purposes, but surely it is in everybody’s interest that we have transparency, just as I think the certification officer should have enforcement powers.

In the same vein, the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Evans of Rainow, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, suggest that the 50% threshold in a ballot for strike action should be retained. Without these safeguards, we make a laughing stock of the idea of democracy in the workplace, our economy and the whole country if we pivot a minority into this false position of power over a majority of the people concerned in the ballot, concerned in giving money or concerned in having their returns properly transparent.

I do not like the totalitarian thread of the Bill. Times have moved on since the days of Herbert Henry Asquith and the time when trade unions represented working people and the industrial economy was at the heart of Britain’s economy. Times have changed. Working practices have changed. Safeguards for people who pay money have changed. Today we see a service economy of roughly 80% and a productive economy of goods of roughly 20%. All the amendments in this group matter, and I particularly support those to omit Clauses 59, 77 and 78 and reverse the attempt by the Government to remove the 50% threshold for decisive action in a ballot.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to follow that 70 minutes of riveting debate. Members may argue that that is the point of this House, and that is what we do. Well, we could have just put the tape recording from Committee on and then gone to the Tea Room for a tea and played it for the same amount of time. Almost the same number of exponents were expressing the same views again and again.

I will try to be as brief as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is right. We support his amendment. The reason for that is that the opt-in system is the best because it maximises choice and transparency for individuals and retains political funds. They need to understand what their funds are being used for.

Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would retain the 50% ballot threshold required for trade unions undertaking industrial action. The Bill would remove this threshold entirely, meaning that a trade union could vote for strike action without a majority of eligible voters. We tabled similar amendments in Committee, and we have concerns about the democracy and democratic integrity of strike action ballots, which this Bill could potentially harm. We also believe that the current threshold for being able to undertake strike action is suitable and that making it easier to strike risks putting further pressure on public services. If a Division is called on this amendment, we will also support it.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, a central arbitration commission might not be Orwellian but I feel that a Central Arbitration “Committee” is. We can agree to disagree on that, but the word “committee” is in the actual name.

Imagine how all this will be taken by the neck on which this regulatory boot is going to be placed by the Bill. All my amendment does is suggest some small limit to when a trade union might announce the date on which it wishes to meet its members. That would provide a proper, proportionate and fair way of giving both sides, company and union, what they need. Indeed, the delay would actually help the union, by allowing it to find a time when more staff were present for the mooted meeting.

The Bill gives the union three months in which to complain if management refuse the proposed time to meet. Surely if three months can be given to the union, two days is not too much to ask for the employer to consider any such request.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. There are good reasons to exempt small businesses, which make up the backbone of our productive economy, from the measures in Clauses 55 and 56, both for the statement of trade union rights and for trade union access.

We know, as we discussed in Committee, how rapidly trade union membership is falling, and that it has fallen particularly in the private sector. We know that, although it has gone up in the public sector, it still represents a much smaller proportion of trade union members than in 1995, when statistics began. Small and medium-sized businesses account for 99.8% of our productive economy. If we impose additional compliance costs on 1.16 million micro businesses of up to 10 employees and on 4 million sole traders, we are saddling them with the kind of compliance costs to which noble Lords have already referred.

I wholeheartedly support my noble friend’s amendments to exempt the majority of small, tiny and medium-sized enterprises from the compliance costs of furnishing a letter and the costs—indirect, perhaps—of access arrangements for trade unions, when there may be no trade unionists in the workforce of these small, entrepreneurial businesses.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to mark that this is the moment—21 July, at 8.59 pm—when the Labour Government are going to put such unreasonable demands on small businesses that they will all come together and say, “This Government are not our friend. This Government are distracting us from growth, from employing more people and from productivity”. Just as small businesses are getting over Making Tax Digital, Covid and tariffs, this legislation will do irreparable harm. I wanted to make that point because I assure noble Lords that there will be future reference to this very moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I may not agree with some of the sentiments of some noble Lords, but I have listened to all the arguments in the last few years, such as when minimum wage was debated. The scaremongering that businesses will go bust does not hold water with me.

We are not anti-business; you cannot find someone more pro-business than me. I have started businesses and been a small business person myself. I strongly believe that this Bill works for workers and for business.

Before I address the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, let me say this: the Government are committed to supporting SMEs. We accept that they have been subject to a challenging operating environment and global uncertainty. That is why the Government have set up the new business growth service, to streamline access to support, and why the new strategy will span key areas, including access to finance, market expansion, business capability development, entrepreneurship, and the creation of a strong and stable business environment. In combination with our industrial strategy, trade strategy and, I hope, our SME strategy, which will be published shortly, it is a key part of this Government’s plan for change to encourage growth and put more money in people’s pockets.

Let me turn first to Amendments 132, 133, and 134. We introduced a streamlined route through the Central Arbitration Committee, which was established in 1975. It is a decision-making process for model access proposals to ensure that genuine and reasonable requests for access are not subject to unnecessary delay, while maintaining appropriate safeguards where complexity or dispute remains.

Regarding Amendments 129, 131 and 145, we believe that strong trade unions are central to tackling issues of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay across the economy. Right of access is key to this. The access framework allows for flexibility for SMEs. Unions and employers can negotiate an access agreement and employers may challenge proposals they consider unsuitable. Where an access agreement cannot be agreed, the CAC determines whether access should be granted, and this decision will be guided by matters prescribed by the Secretary of State.

On Amendment 128, the intention behind this measure is to ensure that all workers are informed of their legal rights at work without imposing undue burden on employers. Making it a requirement for employers to inform workers of their right to join a trade union is about fundamental fairness and transparency. Too many people, especially in low-paid or insecure jobs, do not know that they have this right. We are not telling anyone to join a union; we are simply making sure that they know it is an option. Just as employers are expected to inform staff about health and safety rules or their right to paid leave, they should also be clear about the right to union representation.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Will the Minister agree that it is a bit heavy-handed to require an employer to furnish a new employee, at the same time as giving them the agreed terms and conditions of employment letter, with a statement on their right to join a trade union? I cannot see that that is proportionate.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

It is just like any other right that employees expect, such as health and safety, annual leave and all that. The right to join a union does not mean that they have to join a union; it is still their choice. It is a small step that empowers workers and supports a fairer and more balanced workplace.

The statement of trade union rights will be provided at the start of employment, alongside an existing written statement of particulars already required under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and at other prescribed times. Given that it builds on an established process, we believe that this measure places minimal burden on employers, including many small businesses. We will consult on the practical details of Clause 55 before this is set out in secondary legislation.

On Amendment 130, the right to access is a complex policy and will involve detailed practical consideration. We will therefore provide for the operational details of a responsible and regulated access framework in secondary legislation. Ahead of doing so, we will publicly consult on the operational details this autumn, including on model access terms that the CAC must consider reasonable for both employers and unions to comply with, and the appropriate amount of notice a union must give before access takes place. Consulting before setting out these operational details will ensure that we cater for a variety of scenarios and workplaces and will ensure that these measures are fair and workable in practice. We believe that providing for this operational detail now, ahead of consultation, would be premature. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw Amendment 128.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 144 in this group. We discussed the same amendment in Committee. If we do not have a number, it means that, essentially, one employee could trigger union recognition. Surely that is not something we should impose on small businesses.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, this set of amendments is a proportionate response to the Bill’s Schedule 6 to ensure that we have clarity in the Bill for all parties about the threshold to be met in respect of a union seeking recognition to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers making a request for recognition. As matters stand, employers, unions and employees know that the threshold for recognition is 10%. This is established under Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, on trade union recognition for the union or unions seeking recognition to be entitled to conduct the collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers.

The 10% threshold is set out in paragraph 36 and reinforced throughout Schedule A1 in the subsequent paragraphs that my noble friend’s amendments seek to reinstate. That includes paragraphs 45 and 51 on competing applications, paragraphs 86 to 88, and paragraph 14 on applications. As your Lordships know, this Bill substitutes the words “the required percentage”, including for paragraph 45 on the validity of applications. We know that the required percentage may be 2%, but it has become almost a euphemism for whatever a Minister may decide post consultation and impose via statutory instrument in whatever circumstances we may imagine. It may be that the union masterminding the Birmingham bin chaos, which finds its members fleeing to another union, wants the Government to get a 1% or 0.5% figure in the instrument—or else it would withhold its support from the Labour Party.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

If there is not to be a sensible probation period, is any employer going to have the courage to take on an ex-offender?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords I support the amendments in this group because they would mitigate the potential damage to employment from the perspective of both the employer and the employee, whether that employee is a jobseeker or someone recently appointed. The danger exists particularly in this clause. As your Lordships know, Clause 23 and the linked Schedule 3 repeal Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They remove the qualifying period of employment and make further amendments to the Act in respect of the repeal.

Section 108 stipulates that the protection under Section 94 of the Act, which establishes the right not to be unfairly dismissed, subject to certain conditions, does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for two years. During this two-year extended training period—for that is what it is, and I speak as an employer—when you induct a new employee, you know that if they do not work out, and there are clear headings governing this under law, they can be let go without unfair dismissal claims.

Now, that is to be removed by Clause 23 and Schedule 3. We are repealing Section 108 of the 1996 Act, one of the basic building blocks of employment law in this country. This is one of the most familiar and important pieces of legislation for the labour market. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, have said, it helps offer protection to both parties. It makes for a fluid labour market and avoids the zombie businesses which do little for the wider economy and militate against growth.

I will not go through each of the amendments because noble Lords have heard about them already, but they would facilitate good working practices for both parties. Those looking for a job would be more likely, as we have heard, to be appointed. There will be more job vacancies, which, as we know, have sadly fallen and continued to fall over the last year. Those looking for a job would be more likely to find one and more likely to start their first job, as we have already heard today. The employer would be able to take a risk, as we have heard today—to take a chance on a new employee.

Taking on a new employee involves a great commitment. It involves the commitment not only of a salary, which is only a small fraction of the cost, but of time, training, patience, showing the ropes and bringing someone into the culture of the organisation, so that they can contribute as a happy, contented, productive and effective member of the team. With this clause, we will not have the protections of that. I cannot think of any small employer who will not think twice about taking on a new person, and this will have very bad effects on the economy and growth.

We know there are legal grounds already for unfair dismissal in respect of the job itself. They include conduct, capability, redundancy, legal restrictions on employment and other substantive reasons. Noble Lords have spoken about these today, but there are cast-iron reasons for not being unfairly dismissed. You cannot be dismissed as a whistleblower or for discrimination, and these do not require the two-year qualifying period. The law takes care of this.

Now, with the removal of the two-year period goes the protection for the employer and the opportunities for new employees particularly, but also for many employees who want to change jobs and start a new walk of life. They may find they are not so good at what they were doing and want to try their hand at a new job. They need time to settle in, just as the new person coming into their first job does.

I am not at all convinced that this initial period, which Ministers have told us will have a lighter touch in respect of unfair dismissal arrangements, will actually be very helpful. Some law firms fear that it will impose pretty much the same strictures on an employer. We really need to know from the Minister what exactly the period will be and what the arrangements for unfair dismissal during that period will be, because I cannot see how we can have a Bill setting all this out when we do not know what is intended.

Like other noble Lords, I would value some statement. I do not need to refer to the compliance cost, the impact assessment that estimates hundreds of millions of pounds, or the additional complexity in the recruitment process. Added to the other measures in the Bill, Clause 23 and Schedule 3 add a new dimension of insecurity.

If we are to have businesses, particularly small businesses, willing to grow, to raise productivity as the Government want and to hire the new employees needed to raise that productivity, the Government should welcome Amendment 49 and all the amendments in this group. They accept the spirit of the manifesto pledge and go some way in helping the Government to get out of the mess, which is of their own creation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government were elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protection from day one of employment—not two years, not six months, but day one. To deliver this commitment, we will remove the qualifying period for these rights.

The Government recognise that, from time to time, employers will need to fairly dismiss an employee for a fair reason. We expect that most employers already fairly dismiss employees, and the process need not be too arduous. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. An employee who has been working in the job for some time but whose performance has dipped will continue to have the standard protections against unfair dismissal. However, the Government believe that it is not right to expect employers to have to meet the same standards in the first few months of employment when they are assessing their newly hired recruit and deciding whether that person can deliver what the employer expects. This is why our policy creates a statutory probationary period, during which light-touch standards for dismissal relating to an employee’s performance and suitability will apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, asked what length the probationary period would be. As we have said previously, the Government’s preference is for nine months. We intend to consult on the duration and how the light-touch standards will operate. The current two-year qualifying period is designed not as a training period but a qualifying period before the individual can claim unfair dismissal. If the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Vaux, were to be accepted, employees would still have the threat looming over them of being fired arbitrarily.

Amendment 51 preserves the policy in the Bill of exempting a dismissal due to a spent conviction for many qualifying periods—a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips. I am pleased that the noble Lords agree with the Government’s policy, at least to that extent.

However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that the Government do not believe in protection for some workers in some limited circumstances; instead, they believe in protection for all employees, benefiting 9 million people. The noble Lord spoke about the needs of young people looking for work. Of course we identify with that, and the Government are committed to supporting people as they take their first steps into the world of work or return to work. As the Prime Minister set out on the Get Britain Working White Paper in November 2024:

“Our country’s greatest asset is its people”.


As I explained in Committee, we are

“transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy that will deliver greater flexibility”

for learners and employers

“aligned with the industrial strategy”.

This will include

“shorter duration and foundation apprenticeships in key sectors, helping more people to learn new high-quality skills at work, fuelling innovation in businesses across the country, and providing high-quality pathways for young people”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 305.]

We also intend to limit unpaid internships for those who are part of an education or training course. The law is clear that, if an individual is classed as a worker, they are entitled to at least the national minimum wage and anyone eligible must be paid accordingly.

Beyond enhancing learning on the job and ensuring that a fair wage is paid for young people’s work, we also believe that all employees should be provided with security of work through protections from being fired arbitrarily. It is no less distressing to lose a job at the start of your career than at any other point in the years that follow. However, the Government recognise that employers use probationary periods to assess new hires’ performance and suitability for their role. We will ensure that UK businesses can hire with confidence.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about social mobility. We recognise that good employers take a chance on what we might call “rough diamonds” up and down the country. The valuable time that employers take to support new hires by developing their skills and their talents on the job is not recognised often enough. The statutory probationary period will enable this, with light-touch standards for fair dismissals. We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide for a less onerous approach for businesses to follow to dismiss someone during their statutory probationary period for reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. Of course, that will apply equally to healthcare employees.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about potentially increasing the number of tribunals. Provided that the employer can show that the reason for dismissal was fair, they should have no concerns about the outcome, as nothing is really new from the current situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked about police officers. I understand that they are excluded from the existing legislation, as they would be from the Bill. In that sense, there is no change.

Noble Lords have raised the issue of a cultural fit, which, of course, can mean many different things. “Not a good fit” is often used euphemistically to refer to attributes such as an employee’s work ethic, their level of commitment to the job, or how they interact with their colleagues. In many situations, these reasons will fall into the category of dismissal for conduct or capability, to which the new light-touch standards will apply. If the cultural fit is linked to a protected characteristic then of course dismissing someone for that reason could lead to discrimination claims, and the Bill does not affect that.

Beyond these reasons for dismissal, which clearly fall within the conduct and capability category, the Government will carefully consult on what other kinds of “some other substantial reason” dismissals should also be subject to those light-touch standards. The Bill contains a power for the Government to define what a “some other substantial reason” dismissals “relating to the employee” should mean. As I have noted, the intent is to define what relates to an employee’s performance and suitability for their role. We will welcome employers’ and trade unions’ input on that important issue. However, these amendments would remove the Government’s statutory probationary period to enable light-touch standards for fair dismissals for the first nine months of employment.

Noble Lords asked about consultation. We have already consulted on the proposals, and we are continuing to engage with trade bodies and trade unions prior to publicly consulting later this year. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade issued a letter to stakeholders on Thursday 26 June, which outlined the fundamental principles that are guiding the Government’s development and implementation of day-one rights to unfair dismissal protections and invited stakeholders to engage on the detail of the policy. Should your Lordships be interested, I have now placed a copy of that letter in the House Library. I should also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the road map shows that these day-one rights, including protection from unfair dismissal, will not be introduced before 2027.

In the meantime, these amendments would not deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce a day-one right against unfair dismissal, leaving many newly hired employees without robust employment protections. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Finally, my Amendment 52 is simply a minor technical amendment that corrects a cross-reference in Schedule 3. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 49.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, is nine months now the Government’s official position on the initial period? If it is, can they confirm what they are minded to put into their light-touch unfair dismissal arrangements?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have said before, we will continue to consult on this but that is our preferred option at this stage. We think that is a reasonable balance between the current arrangements and some of the proposals we have before us today.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

What it will do is increase the time for which these children will be detained. The worst thing you can do for a young person is detain them for any length of time. The current way of dealing with it—maybe overnight or for 24 hours—was acceptable, but not detaining children for 28 days. I hope that the Government will reject these proposals on the grounds that we already have existing legislation protecting children and we need to maintain and uphold that. However, I could be entirely wrong as I have not heard the arguments put forward for it.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said in pointing out the problems we have with the amendment. Detention centres are used, as the noble Lord said, for those with no legal right to be here—and whether that is a man or a woman who has come with no legal right to be here and who is subject to detention, that is a very good reason. They are also used for those whose identity is being established or where there is a risk of absconding.

If there were no detention after 28 days and, as the noble Baroness proposed, a right to community arrangements instead, we would not be honouring the wish of the people of this country to control illegal migration, or indeed the overall figures. There would be constant fears that people who came here without any right to be here, or whose identity was in doubt or who were at risk of absconding, would likely disappear into the ether and we would have no trace of them.

I also do not think that it is a good idea to suggest that we make gender differences in applying the law. It is very important that the law applies equally to men and women. I am sorry about the children, but I think the message should be to the parents who have put the children in this position, “Do not do it. Do not endanger your children. Do not subject them to the arrangements which must be made if populations are to be protected and the laws upheld. Stay elsewhere”. That would be a very good signal, because we would save children from being put on small boats by what I believe to be irresponsible parents who may be endangering the lives of their very own.

I therefore hope that we keep the detention centres for as long as is needed—and we keep people in them for as long as is needed—under the arrangements now proposed in the Bill, and in existence, so that we can properly process those who have a right to be here and those who have no right to be here.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 102A, 115A, 115B, 115C, 115D, and 115E, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seek to repeal Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. This section sets out that “relevant persons” may be detained for as long as the Secretary of State deems “reasonably necessary” to carry out examinations or removal, to make an immigration or deportation decision, or to issue removal directions.

As with many of the decisions to repeal sections of the Illegal Migration Act, I question the noble Baroness’s intent on this point. Why does she oppose the exercise of reasonable detention to carry out an examination or to facilitate a removal process? As the Government themselves recognise, these are important powers that allow the Government to facilitate an operable migration system. If even this Government believe that Section 12 should be retained, this tells us something about its necessity.

I wonder what the noble Baroness proposes instead. What would she do, for instance, if a person refused to undergo an examination? What would she do if a decision was made to remove a person but, because the state could not detain them, they simply ran off? This does not seem to us to be a reasonable or proportionate amendment and I therefore oppose it on this basis.

Amendment 112 in my name seeks to reintroduce Section 11 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which the Government in this Bill are proposing to repeal. This Section of the Act introduced a new legal power to detain individuals specifically in connection with the Government’s duty to remove people who enter the UK illegally.

Let us be clear about the provisions in this Section. Section 11 provided to immigration officers and the Home Secretary the clear, legal authority to detain people who fell within the removal duty framework, to hold them lawfully during processing and to enforce removals, while also incorporating safeguards for children and pregnant women. What in this do the Government disagree with so much that they feel that they have to repeal this Section of the Act? We are clear on this side of the House that people who come to the United Kingdom illegally must be removed.

I will set out my position briefly and then invite the Minister to explain why he and the Government want to axe this provision from law. We believe, as we have set out before, that those who come to the United Kingdom illegally should not be allowed to remain. What is the purpose of having law if we allow people to break it with no consequence? Is this not the equivalent of allowing shoplifters to hang on to what they have stolen? Is this not the same as allowing those who break into people’s homes to keep hold of the things they have taken after they have been caught?

Without this provision, we are directly allowing people to benefit from their criminality. To us on this side, it is wholly irresponsible for a Government to allow those who break our laws to benefit from their activities. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to really defend what his Government are doing. To us, the decision to repeal Section 11 seems reckless.

Furthermore, our Amendment 113 similarly seeks to reintroduce Section 13 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which sought to reduce the administrative burden on our courts by reducing the chance that we would be faced with vexatious appeals early on in the detention process. This Section also sought to delay access to immigration bail. This has many benefits, the main one being that it addressed the problem that individuals who crossed illegally could be released on bail before the Home Office could organise their removal, leading to long delays, absconding or the person simply disappearing into the system.

Removing this provision poses a clear risk of complicating the removals process, clogging up the courts and fundamentally undermining the Government’s capacity and ability to get those people who should not be in this country out. I hope the Minister will similarly explain why the Government think this move is a sensible one. Can he assure the House now that this decision will not create any increase in the backlog, and can he confirm that this will not delay the process of removing those who come here illegally? Can he commit now to the reincorporation of Section 13 into this Bill, if any of his answers to those questions are in doubt?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords who spoke. As I said, we will come back to the issue of detention later, and it is helpful to have heard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, because I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord German, in particular will take them on board when he comes to move his amendment later.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that no one is talking about people just roaming around, free to go where they like. I made the point that, in the pilots, there was no evidence of a reduction in compliance with UK Home Office directives. They are not just a holiday camp or something.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am sorry, but what I meant was the community frameworks about which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spoke.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

That is what I was talking about: the pilots showed that there was a very effective way, alternative to detention, that still kept people where they were supposed to be. The noble Baroness might like to read the UNHCR report about the pilots.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his support. He probably explained what Section 12 is about rather more clearly than I did, so I thank him for that. My noble friend the Minister dealt with Amendments 112 and 113, so I will not refer to them.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked what would happen next if this amendment were successful and we removed Section 12. It would be the status quo ante—not some kind of strange situation that we have never seen before. I will not go on much longer, because I am conscious of time moving on.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I apologise for doubling up by asking a Written Question and then saying it, but when I wrote the Written Question this amendment had not been tabled. The Written Question was an alternative, and I am sorry that he has had to put up with it twice.

I will leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to read what my noble friend said. It is helpful to have it spelled out exactly why the Government are not repealing Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act. I suspect I still do not agree with him, but it is helpful to have those reasons. I absolutely understand, and I will not push him to deal with the points I made about indefinite detention, alternative detention and so forth, because that debate will be had at a later date; it is just that I probably will not be able to be there for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 172. I would genuinely press the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to elucidate the meaning behind it, because I find it quite confusing. The amendment seeks to prevent the proper authorities gaining any information about a person. I read the wording very carefully. It refers to

“suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking”.

It could be that that status changes, and that a person was originally suspected of being a victim but when further inquiry took place it proved not to be the case. Therefore, I find it odd that under this restrictive amendment—I am happy to be disabused if I have got it wrong—a public authority would be speaking to, for instance, adult social care or adult social services, children’s services and others but would be prevented on a statutory basis from talking to anyone else on the chance that, somewhat down the line, that person may have criminal charges laid against them. At that stage, they may be found not to have been truly a victim of slavery or human trafficking.

To specifically rule out

“a customs official ... a law enforcement officer … a UK authorised person”—

I am not entirely certain what that is—or

“the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”

seems pretty draconian and restrictive. Perhaps the noble Baroness might wish to enlighten us about the meaning behind this amendment. However, for the reasons I set out, I do not think it would be appropriate to incorporate it into the Bill, and on that basis, I oppose it.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I have my doubts about Amendment 182, which would insert a new clause after Clause 48 for victims of human trafficking, granting them leave to remain for at least 60 months, access to support services and employment, and eligibility for settlement after five years. Returning to the point made on these Benches by my noble friend Lord Harper and picked up on a different amendment by my noble friend Lord Jackson, I fear that there is always a doubt about real victims of human trafficking and slavery, who everyone feels the deepest of sympathy for and wants to support. However, by creating a system that gives undue advantage to such people, as Amendment 182 would do, one would, I fear, increase the perverse incentive for anyone to claim that they were a victim of human trafficking and slavery. That would create endless additional bureaucratic and other expenses for our legal system and our Home Office arrangements in trying to check the mushrooming of claims. I am not in favour of this more generous treatment under Amendment 182.

I also have certain doubts about Amendment 205, which would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation to adopt into UK law the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, partly because we have made progress on many of these matters in UK law. At this stage, it is not very sensible to start adopting additional international frameworks, some of which are recent, while others relate to distant periods that we already cover. This would over-bureaucratise the system and add an additional expense. Where there are genuine claims, we must make our own laws work.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

The costs imposed by this Bill will far outweigh any benefit brought about by the minimum wage increase. While a small number of workers may see modest increases thanks to the minimum wage, many more will miss out on wage increases, as businesses have to manage their increased costs. Moreover, the jobs that might have been created by new businesses entering the market, often with higher productivity and higher wage positions, will simply not exist. I urge the Minister to undertake and commit to conduct a thorough assessment of the impact of this legislation on the issues that I have sought to highlight in this group of amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, calling for an impact assessment requiring an independent analysis on different measures. I have added my name to three of them. Amendment 310 asks for an impact assessment on business, new entrants and start-ups, while Amendment 311 asks for a productivity impact reporting, and Amendment 319 asks for a new clause on assessing the impact of the regulatory burden on businesses.

Amendment 310 would require an impact assessment on new business entrants and small start-ups, including the impact of administrative and financial costs. Why do we need this? We know from ONS data that the story of business start-ups from 2016-17 to 2023-24 was one of steady increase, from 664,750 new start-ups in 2016-17 to 800,000 in 2022-23. We know from other data, from an analysis for NatWest bank and the Beauhurst Group, that for the last calendar year 846,000 new businesses were registered, bringing the total to a record high of 6.63 million last year. Just under one-third of that, 248,000, in the first quarter was, sadly, a figure not sustained by the end of the year, with a 25% drop in business formation as the year progressed.

Of course, headline figures should be read with caveats entered. Here are just three. Quite a few new companies do not survive their first or indeed their second year. One tech and computer entrepreneur once told me that you would expect in his sector at least one or two failures until you got to a success; it was almost the necessity to fail that brought success. Difficult circumstances, such as an economic slowdown due to exceptional causes or external shocks, may have an impact on new start-ups taking off. Indeed, some companies will simply be reformations of existing organisations and businesses.

These may be the ordinary reasons why we see start-ups not doing so well, but one common obstacle to getting a new business off the ground or making a success of it is the burden of too much of the wrong—and unnecessary—regulation. The Government and the public will need to know the impact of this measure, after a year or at a period to be agreed between the Government and opposition parties, to see whether the decline in new applicants that we saw at the end of 2024 will continue in the first year of operation and, if so, what steps we may need to take to mitigate this. New businesses are our lifeblood. They help replace the stock of zombie businesses which go out of business and rightly fail in the competitive economy to which my noble friend Lord Hunt alluded.

This Bill, as others which the Labour Government have proposed or enacted since 2024, penalises employers and businesses and introduces a device of damaging politicisation and ideologically driven changes to favour certain vested interest groups over the interests of business, the whole UK economy and the people of this country, who depend on a strong, prosperous and competitive economy to find and keep a job to pay their bills and to pay the tax revenue on which their public services depend.

The Bill’s burdens on all will impose a multitude of additional costs—through employee rights without corresponding obligations or duties, and additional duties and costs on employers—uncertainties, as many of the proposals in the Bill will be decided by regulation, and costs to businesses trying to plan. They weigh the law against and involve cost and compliance burdens for an employer or business, as my noble friend has explained, not only in respect of the rights of employees but through procedures that vary from record-keeping and handling equality action plans in Part 2 to the new law on industrial relations, which is in favour of trade unions and changes or repeals measures that have been around since 1992 and, by and large, have brought peace and harmony to the labour market of this country and the prosperity we need.

These burdens will make for grave uncertainty, given the range of powers that will be exercised, as I have mentioned, by a Minister who may reflect the ideological bent of the current Government to direct their powers against business, employers and the UK economy in favour of those who pay for the Labour Party through political funding—we have had many a debate on that in this Chamber. They are to be finalised through consultation and announced later. Surely, it is not too much to temper such militancy by giving the public and the Government of the day an analysis of what the costs of the regulatory burdens will be so that any adverse impact can be measured and mitigated.

Amendment 311 calls for an assessment of the impact of the Act on productivity. My noble friend has said that the Government recognise in their own impact assessment that the productivity gain will be small. UK productivity is already significantly lower than that of our competitors in the G7—the US, Germany and France—but we will discuss international competitiveness later so I will not speak on that now. However, as a result of this Bill, we expect productivity to decline further by sector and by employee. We know that around 70.9% of workers in the UK work in firms with labour productivity below the mean. It is very difficult to envisage that productivity will increase as a result of the regulatory burdens in this Bill.

If growth is the aim of this Government, we need to increase productivity dramatically. This will not be achieved through an ever-shrinking workforce and the contraction of business activity; at my last count, our labour market had lost 115,000 workers since this Government came to power. Nor will it be achieved by burdening business—and, as my noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned, its capacity to invest in new people, plant and technology—by increasing the money needed to pay for the extra compliance and regulatory costs of this Bill, rather than investing in the production of goods and services, and the training of the people who produce.

I support this amendment, as I do the others, so that we shall have a real measure, based on independent, impartial data, that will shed daylight on the impact of the Bill on these three counts and help the people of this country—and the Government—to press for change, should we need it.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests in both consultancy and the hospitality industry. I have really come to help the Government on this bit of the Bill, because the problem they have is that very few of those who are working on the Bill run businesses. I have run businesses all my life, except for the time when I was a Minister, and, as I read the Bill, I am very concerned that it has been written by people who have not run businesses. They do not understand the damage that they do to employment and new business. I hope every Minister will admit that to themselves, whether or not they have run businesses and met these problems. Have the civil servants who advise them, or the political advisers from their parties, run businesses and seen these problems for themselves? If the answer is “Not much”, “Not many” or “Not overall”, surely they ought to see whether they have got it right.

Frankly, I do not think they have got it right, but I am very happy to be proved wrong. I do not think they have got it right because I know what has happened in the businesses with which I am associated. I know that we are employing less, because that is the only way we can pay the increased demands on employers. I know that the balances that we have to make now are not to the advantage of staff recruitment. Above all, I know that if I were starting a new business, the temptation not to do so would be very much greater because of the complications that the Bill, and previous actions of the Government, place on us.

That puts me in a position in which I do not think the Bill is, in large measure, a good one. But I am prepared to be proved wrong if, by clear investigation, we look at the results of what happens and take account of it. The problem is that if this Government are going to carry out effectively many of the policies with which I agree—more than I agree with some of the policies on this side of the House—they must prove to the public that they listen and are prepared to look at the facts.

I came to this debate to plead with the Government not to say, “Oh well, this is what we are told by people and we think it is a good idea. It fits in with our obligations and our attitudes”. Instead, they might say, “We will argue in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and at the end of it we will see whether we were right. We will see whether the Opposition were right or we were. If we show we are right, we have a really good position to say to the public, ‘There you are, we said we were right and we have been proved right’”. They might say now that they are not even going to find out whether they are right, not going to measure it and not going to accept these amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and I disagree on most things. Both of us, though, think that it would be a good idea to check to see where we are. I do not understand why representatives of the trade unions are not getting up and saying to the Government, “Look, we think we’re right and we think you’re right, so check it and independently show that it is right”. Instead of that, the Government are admitting, frankly, either that they do not know or that they fear they would be proved wrong. I want a Government who are brave enough to say, “We’ll actually put it to the test. We’ll actually accept these amendments and we’ll find out who’s right. If we’re wrong, we’ll change it. If we’re right, we’ll crow like mad over those people who told us we were wrong”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I, together with my ministerial colleagues, speak to businesses every day, whether they are tech companies, other businesses or whatever. Yesterday, I had a conversation with Small Business Britain, and we talked about this Bill and most of its members have confidence in this Government. We talk to all businesses.

I come back to Amazon: basically, what it means is £40 billion. It is creating 4,000 new jobs across the UK, which is a major boost to our tech and logistics sector. The latest Lloyds Business Barometer survey shows that business confidence is at a nine-month high, with a rise in hiring expectations among businesses. This is proof that our plan for change is working. Britain is open for business, and the world is taking notice. There is simply nothing more I can add to the noble Lord’s argument. This analysis—and we will continue to do impact assessments—will be done, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 310.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I just clarify whether he said that 90,000 jobs were created in the first quarter of 2025, or was it 290,000? I missed the exact figure. It is my understanding that, in the first quarter of last year, with which the comparison has been made by the Minister, there were 248,000 new entrants. The Minister spoke of new jobs, but our impact assessment is on new entrants to the market and there were 248,000 in the first quarter of last year. If the 90,000 refers to new jobs as opposed to new entrants into the workforce, that is a different comparison.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to say this again. In the first quarter of 2025, the UK saw 90,000 businesses created. Business creation was up by 2.8% over last year, while business closures fell by 4.4%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s excellent amendment, as we reach the end of Committee. Before I get into the substance of that, I will offer some praise. Noble Lords know that, last week, I took issue with the Government Front Bench about the potential lack of response to letters from individual noble Lords who had raised specific points during Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who is no longer in her place, took some issue with that, resiled from my analysis and said that it was not the case. However, over the last few days, I have received a plethora of epistles from the Government in my email. As Private Eye may have said in the past, are those two occasions by any chance related? That was my praise; I thank the Government for coming forward with those letters and we will hold them to account when we reach Report. I am grateful for small mercies, nevertheless.

I commend to the Government the excellent report of the Social Mobility Commission, State of the Nation Report 2024: Local to National, Mapping Opportunities for All. I probably say this at every juncture, but my noble friend’s amendment is helpful, because there is a cross-party consensus that we should all be working to help young people in particular into work, innovative employment, and skills and training. As we all know, and as has been found by apolitical third parties such as the charity the Sutton Trust, which focuses on improving social mobility, there are disparities across the country. There are sectoral and geographic disparities, and disparities in people’s backgrounds, race, ethnicity, age et cetera. As far as is practicable, we should be designing legislation that tackles issues around improving life chances, training and skills, and innovation.

More fundamentally, we need to be designing legislation that tackles endemic, entrenched inequalities, and that is what this amendment is about. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom is absolutely right that this is about opportunity cost. Many employers, given the chance, will try to help young people by giving them a chance to improve their life chances and skills, and by paying for their exams and training, et cetera—via apprenticeships, for instance. But the legislative regime will be such that they are encouraged not to employ that person, because they may have a disability, may be late to the employment market or may not be socialised—they may not understand the protocols of going to work each day, of being on time and of being dressed smartly, which are very basic things that we take for granted. That risk aversity, employers not wanting to employ those people, will have a negative effect as the corollary of this Bill.

Ministers have a chance at least to engage with this amendment and, when we come to Report, I hope to accept it; it would make a real difference to the lives of people who find it tough to enter and stay in the employment market. I encourage Ministers to look at the report to which I referred, and at the work that has been done to support the Bill and its laudable objectives. My noble friend offers this amendment in good faith in order genuinely to improve the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will look on it favourably and incorporate its ideas into the finished Bill.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I could not support this amendment more; I heartily support it. A social mobility impact assessment is vital.

I want to illustrate this with a few brief words on the retail sector. My noble friends have referred to the many reasons why people are excluded from employment in the retail sector, such as a lack of social mobility. When this Bill was coming forward last year, the British Retail Consortium expressed great concern and doubt about its ability to offer jobs. The BRC indicated that 61% of those consulted said that the Bill would reduce flexibility in job offers, 10% were unsure and 23% said that it would have no effect.

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.