Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment so eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. There is not much more to add, but I will try. I also put my name to the amendment.

I thought we had gone past the stage where we look back at history and do not learn its lessons on protecting the franchise and the ballot in sensitive elections. There are no more sensitive elections than workplace elections, on which people’s very livelihood, careers, family and income depend.

I take your Lordships’ Committee back to February 1834. Colleagues on the other side of the Chamber will be aware that in 1833 agricultural workers in the village of Tolpuddle in Dorset quite rightly formed a union to fight wage cuts. The following year they were arrested, arraigned, found guilty and transported not because they had administered oaths, which was the official reason for their incarceration, but because they assembled as a group. The point is that they did not have a secret ballot. They had an open meeting to form the union and a strategy for fighting those wage cuts, and they were betrayed by two union members. If you talk to Unite the Union and GMB, there is nothing new under the sun.

That said, the point was they did not have a secret ballot. One reason that the unions have evolved in a positive way over many years—hitherto, until we reached this Bill—is that we have had that workplace democracy, unlike in the bad old days of the 1970s and before, where people were pressured to join a union in the closed shop and sometimes pressured to support industrial action which was uncalled for and damaging both to their own jobs and to the business generally, as we saw, for instance, in 1984 with the miners’ strike. Amendments 247 and 248 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral are very sensible. I would say: be careful what you wish for, because there is another historical example, although noble Lords on the other side may resile from it. The Jim Crow laws in the southern part of the United States existed for many years post-reconstruction in 1865. That they marginalised, traduced and undermined the right of black people, of African Americans, to vote was, in effect, because they did not have a secret ballot and had to register, and there were many legal impediments to them voting.

We respect the integrity of the secret ballot. We would not dream of asking local councillors, parish councillors, borough councillors, county councillors and certainly not Members of Parliament to seek election on the basis that their electorate would be corralled into voting a certain way and there would not be a secret ballot. That is as it should be and as it has been for modern times, and it is correct. Why are we now going back to a potential era of bullying, harassment and attacking people who may not support the union line? Give people a chance to think, reflect and choose the right way for not just themselves and their families but their union by means of a secret ballot. For those reasons I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope the Minister will give it due regard.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose this group of amendments. I have to say that it is with deep regret, because my assessment of them is that they are trying to stir up a spectre of trade union intimidation, which reminds me strongly of the initiative going back in history—not quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—to 2014, when the Government commissioned Bruce Carr QC, as he was then, to conduct an investigation of intimidation in workplaces. As it transpired, Mr Carr declined all opportunities to make any recommendations whatever on the basis of the evidence that he received. For the TUC’s part—and I was at the helm at the time—we described it as a party-political stunt and said that, frankly, the then Conservative Party in government should have repaid the taxpayer for the significant cost of conducting that investigation that led to zero—I repeat, zero—recommendations for changes in the law. In fact, Mr Carr went on just a year or two later to oppose the then Conservative Government’s Trade Union Bill as “a threat” to industrial relations and to civil liberties.

That brings me to safe and secure e-balloting. It seems to me that anybody who was a true democrat would be looking to increase opportunities for participation in safe, secure, secret and electronic balloting. Any boost to democracy should be welcome. I have to say that it is disappointing that those who oppose the right for trade unionists to cast their vote safely, securely and secretly by electronic ballot apparently believe that there is no threat of intimidation in respect of political parties. Therefore, it is fine for political parties to use modern methods of balloting; it is not fine for trade unionists. I would ask what view that gives us of the perception of trade unions from the Benches opposite, when, on the contrary, we should be proud of trade unions. We should tackle the causes and not just the symptoms of industrial action. We should be proud of constructive industrial relations in this country, which are vital for productivity and growth.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 247, 248 and 250 would introduce further requirements in relation to trade union ballots, particularly concerning the risk of intimidation, the use of workplace locations and the information that unions must provide to members. While the intention to ensure that ballots are conducted fairly without pressure is understandable, I question whether these proposals are justified. They appear to introduce new procedural barriers for trade unions, with little evidence that safeguards are failing. There is a broader concern that measures of this kind may tilt the balance even further against workers attempting to organise and exercise their rights. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether these amendments are proportionate and necessary, and how they align with the broader approach to employment and industrial relations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendment 254 and the other amendments in this group.

I also admit to a certain degree of pleasure that they have been tabled, because they draw attention to the fact that such was the rejection, not just of unions or the minimum service levels Act but of the public and employers, that not a single employer used the minimum service levels Act and not a single work notice was issued. That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.

I thank the Benches opposite for putting forward the amendments.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and I took part in the debates on the 2023 Bill when it went through your Lordships’ House—obviously, on different Benches. She is right that no employer sought to use the powers in the 2023 Act, but the Act had only a relatively short existence in which it was available to employers before, in effect, we went into an election period.

I accept that, at the time, employers did not wish to take advantage of the Act’s provisions. The main purpose of the Act was to protect individual citizens to ensure that they had the levels of service that they needed. That goes beyond safety issues, which are the minimum levels to which unions tend to sign up for, so that ordinary citizens have minimum service levels to get themselves to work, to get themselves to their hospital appointments and so on. We did not give that Act enough time to see: first, whether it would work in practice, which I believe it would; and, secondly, whether it would be popular with the British public, which I am absolutely certain it would have been, if it had had a proper amount of time to come into effect.

I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.

I particularly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which seeks an impact assessment on SMEs. I will always support an impact assessment on SMEs, because we have not had a proper one yet. I do not believe that Part 4 of the Bill will have the biggest impact on SMEs—other parts, particularly Part 1, will decimate SMEs—but I support any opportunity to get full public exposure of the impact of the provisions throughout the Bill on the health of our very important SME sector.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

My final point is that there are plenty of examples where we have cherry-picked international obligations. With the Hirst No. 2 case of 2005, on prisoner votes, the then Conservative Government, I think probably agreed with by the Labour Opposition, completely disregarded the idea of giving a full franchise to prisoners serving a custodial sentence. My noble friend on the Front Bench is nodding her head: as a very accomplished Home Office Minister, she will no doubt concur with that. So there are occasions where we have disregarded our obligations for political reasons, and we can do it again. If the choice is bringing back secondary picketing and all that goes with it, or disregarding some obligations that have been established by a foreign legal entity, I know which decision I would make for the long-term future of employment, business and commerce in this country.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It seems to me that the key purpose behind this group of amendments is seeking to shift the balance of power a little bit more towards working people. I think you would find that many people in the country agree that that balance of power has swung too far against ordinary working people for too long.

I just want to very, very briefly say a word on Amendment 253 and underline the very grave sense of injustice that prison officers feel about the removal of what is a fundamental human right, the right to withdraw your labour, back in 1994. There is a sense that that did not in any way improve the Prison Service; I think many of us would agree that the Prison Service has subsequently faced huge challenges. We know of the huge problems that prison officers face very often, day to day, in their workplace: violence, poor conditions and vermin. I stress the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. Given the grave sense of injustice that is felt by people who not only stand up for fellow workers as members of the POA but stand up for a service that we could become proud of as a country, a prison service that also, I hope, does the job of rehabilitating people, we must look to engage with the POA to find a remedy to the real sense of injustice that they feel.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will quickly follow and agree with my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough in their speaking against the amendments in this group. We feel that these amendments collectively represent a dangerous and retrograde step that would just take us back to the industrial chaos of the 1970s.

Such amendments would fundamentally undermine the carefully balanced framework of industrial relations that has served this country well for, now, over 30 years. I suppose the conventions of the House require me to address each amendment in turn, starting with Amendment 239. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, described, this would remove Section 223 of the 1992 Act, which currently renders unlawful any industrial action taken in response to dismissals for unofficial action.

When workers engage in unofficial action—that is, action not sanctioned by their trade union and without proper balloting procedures—they are essentially taking the law into their own hands, so employers must retain the right to dismiss workers who breach their contracts in this manner. To permit official industrial action in response to such lawful dismissals would create a vicious circle where lawlessness begets more lawlessness. It would effectively immunise unofficial action from any meaningful consequences, and encourage workers to bypass the proper, democratic procedures that unions themselves have surely fought hard to establish.

Amendment 240 is perhaps the most pernicious of all these proposals. It would restore secondary action, the ability of workers not just to strike against their employer over their conditions, but to support disputes elsewhere. We banned secondary action for compelling reasons. It allows disputes to spread like wildfire across the economy, dragging innocent third parties into conflicts that have nothing to do with their industrial relationships. A dispute between workers and one employer could paralyse entire supply chains, disrupting businesses that have committed no wrong and harming workers who have no stake in the original dispute.

The amendment would also remove the sensible restrictions on picketing, allowing pickets to target any workplace, rather than just their own. This opens the door to flying pickets and the mass intimidation tactics that we witnessed in the darkest days of industrial conflict. When pickets can descend on workplaces with which they have no employment relationship, the result is not legitimate industrial pressure but mob rule. Furthermore, by changing the definition of trade disputes from those “wholly or mainly” relating to employment matters to those merely “connected with” such matters, this amendment would politicise industrial action. Strikes could be called on the flimsiest of pretexts, with only the most tenuous connection to genuine workplace issues. This is a recipe for politically motivated disruption that serves no legitimate industrial relations purpose.

Amendment 241 would restore the right to strike for union recognition. We have established statutory procedures for union recognition that are fair, democratic and effective. These procedures protect workers’ rights to choose whether they wish to be represented by a union, without the coercion that inevitably accompanies strike action. When recognition can be achieved through industrial action, the process becomes tainted by intimidation, rather than informed by genuine worker preference. No worker should ever face the choice between supporting their family and supporting union recognition demands.

Amendment 242 would remove the requirement for unions to provide employers with notice of strike ballots. This seemingly technical change would also have profound practical consequences. Employers need advance notice to make contingency arrangements, to protect vulnerable service users and to engage in meaningful dialogue that might resolve disputes before they escalate. In essential services—our hospitals, schools and transport networks—such notice is crucial for public safety. To remove this requirement would be to abandon the vital principle that industrial action should and must be a last resort rather than a first response.

Amendment 243 would eliminate the requirement for separate workplace ballots, allowing unions to aggregate completely different workplaces and employment relationships into single ballots. This strikes at the heart of democratic participation. Workers in one workplace may face entirely different conditions and concerns from those in another. They should not be bound by the votes of workers with whom they share nothing but a common union membership. Workplace-specific ballots ensure that industrial action has genuine support from those who will participate in it, rather than being imposed by a union hierarchy pursuing its own agenda.

Taken together, these amendments would create a perfect storm of industrial instability. They would restore the legal framework that gave us the winter of discontent, when rubbish piled up in our streets, bodies went unburied and hospital patients were turned away by striking workers. They would empower union leaders to spread disputes across entire industries, to bypass democratic procedures and to hold essential services hostage to political demands. We must not forget the lessons of history. The industrial relations reforms of the 1980s and 1990s did not destroy trade unionism; they civilised it. They required unions to be accountable to their members and responsive to legitimate concerns while preventing the abuse of industrial power.

The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, would have us believe that they simply want to restore workers’ rights. But rights without responsibilities are merely privileges, and privileges being exercised without regard for their impact on others quickly becomes tyranny. The right to strike is not an absolute right; it is a powerful tool that must be used judiciously and with proper safeguards.

Moreover, these amendments would do nothing to address the real challenges that face working people today. They would not raise a single wage, improve a single workplace or create a single job. Instead, as my noble friends pointed out, they would create uncertainty, discourage investment and ultimately harm the very workers that they purport to be helping. Businesses need stability and predictability to grow and prosper. Industrial relations law that encourages conflict and chaos will drive investment elsewhere, taking jobs and opportunities with it.

I urge this Committee to reject these amendments. They represent not progress but regression, not liberation but license, and not workers’ rights but workers’ wrongs. We must maintain the balanced approach that has served our economy and our society so well. Let us resist the siren call of those who would drag us back to an era of industrial warfare that all of us hoped that we would never see again. The choice before us is clear. We can preserve a system that protects workers’ legitimate rights while maintaining economic stability and social peace, or we can return to those bad old days of secondary picketing, political strikes and industrial anarchy. I think and I hope that I know which path this Committee would choose.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance TV producer. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, whose amendment this is, has waited and waited to be able to debate it, but now, when the big moment arrives, he is prevented from taking his place in the Chamber by an unbreakable commitment—so the Committee has me.

This amendment is an attempt to address the wretched, exploitative workplace faced by far too many people wanting to enter work. It attempts to create a new definition of “work experience”, which would ensure that participants are educated, and not exploited, as they attempt to join the workforce. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it is important for new entrants to spend time in a workplace, finding out whether they like the work environment and, even better, whether they are seen as a possible fit for the company.

Much energy has been spent focusing on how to get young people, and people returning to employment, back into the workplace. I am glad that there has been reform and improvement to the apprenticeship schemes, but that is for those who want training in a specific sector. However, many people do not know what they want to do and, for them, internships have been a way to discover whether they can engage with a particular industry and whether it can engage with them. Unfortunately, so many of these internships have turned out to be exploitative.

I have worked in the creative industries all my career, so I have first-hand experience of young people coming in to find out about the industry, only to discover that they are expected to work for either no pay or well below the minimum wage. This is happening not just in the creative industries but across the economy. I have been told about a strengthening coach, working for a major professional sporting body, who was initially on a short-term internship, which became a two-year, daily commitment. During all that time, he was not paid. He loved what he was doing so was afraid to ask for payment and was forced to take a second job to sustain himself.

Internships are essential, and they are covered by the National Minimum Wage Act, so any intern who qualifies as a worker, under the criteria laid out in the Act, should be paid. A new survey by the broadcasting union BECTU reveals that 49% of people joining the creative industries have been pressurised to work for free. In their desperation to get into this competitive industry, many succumb and work for free. The highly respected Sutton Trust found last year that 61% of internships undertaken by recent graduates were underpaid or unpaid. The largest percentage of these jobs are in the south-east, where accommodation is notoriously expensive. It means that those people from the regions and nations, or from more socially disadvantaged families, who cannot afford the accommodation, are prevented from taking up those places. For a Government who are determined and dedicated to getting people into work in well-paid jobs, this is a failure that must be rectified rapidly. Social mobility realises the talent of the whole population; it is the only way to ensure that our nation succeeds economically.

The body charged with enforcing the minimum wage Act is HMRC. Part of the problem is that if the intern is not paid, they do not appear on HMRC’s radar. This is not helped by the fact that so many small companies do not have anybody focusing on personnel issues and, even when they have an HR department, surveys show they are not well enough informed about the law. I ask the Minister: how many prosecutions against employers have there been under the National Minimum Wage Act for unpaid internships?

Amendment 129 is an attempt to sort out the complicated and often exploitative system for those trying to get into the job market. It is crucial to ensure that there is a difference in law between interns, who should be paid, and those undertaking work experience, who should not. Proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment sets out a new legal concept of “work experience”, defined by

“observing, replicating, assisting with and carrying out any task with the aim of gaining experience of a particular workplace, organisation … or work-related activity”.

The most important criterion for what constitutes work experience is that it is voluntary, and participants are not under the control of anyone else. It has to be a learning experience, and must ensure that participants are shadowing and not actually doing the job. Work experience is already part of many T-level courses for young people. Some universities facilitate work experience, but not nearly enough of these places are available. It is a crucial pathway into work life. At a time when we are hearing of so many people who are out of the workforce, it is important that this stage of their career is clearly established and legally defined.

I am pleased that the amendment has a time limit on what counts as work experience. A maximum of four weeks seems like a good duration. It would allow the participant sufficient time to get a grip on what happens in a specific workplace and to decide whether they want to embark on a career there, but, in my view, is not enough time for them to become established as an unpaid intern. So many underpaid or unpaid internships carry on for many more than four weeks, and this amendment would ensure that that does not happen.

The highly respected Sutton Trust says that access to the workplace is a central obstacle to social mobility. I beg the Government to take the suggestion in this proposed new clause seriously. I ask the Minister to examine it as part of a possible solution to the crisis facing new entrants to the creative and other industries. I hope your Lordships will discuss this further when the Committee gets to my noble friend Lord Clancarty’s Amendments 286 and 287 on establishing a freelance commissioner.

Meanwhile, this amendment is focused on the many thousands of young people who want to get into work but do not know what they want to do. If the Government take up the work experience category laid out in this amendment, it will give those people a taste of the workplace, which is crucial to engaging them and crucial to getting them engaged in the job market. I beg to move.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, as somebody with long experience of campaigning against unpaid internships, I have a huge amount of sympathy with the motivation behind this amendment.

Certainly, it is true that a key reflection of the reversal of social mobility in this country has been the growth of unpaid internships. It started with the creative industries, where, in the past, a young person from a working-class background used to be able to start as a runner in broadcasting, or as a cub reporter on their local newspaper, and then found their path to national newspapers or progression within broadcasting blocked by the parachuting in of very often young people from wealthy backgrounds, often to senior positions, on an unpaid internship that nobody from a working-class background could afford to take. It costs thousands of pounds, particularly if the position is located in London and you do not live in London. I absolutely agree that unpaid internships have been a block and a major barrier to young working-class people’s progression.

My concern is that, from my perspective, the problem is not the law but the enforcement of the law. As trade unions, we have campaigned to get HMRC to take this seriously. There was a flurry of action around cracking down on unpaid internships, but, since Covid in particular, there has been an uptick—you have only to scan any recruitment agency website and you will see that they are brazenly advertising unpaid internships that lock young working-class people out of the professions, and doing so in flagrant abuse of the law.

Sadly, I cannot support this amendment. I fear that bad employers would be able to offer rolling unpaid internships, shoving young people through a revolving door of not getting paid as they are entitled to be for the productive work that they do. They should be paid at least the national minimum wage. What I would support is the proposed fair work agency launching a major crackdown on young people being robbed of their dreams and opportunities through the exploitative practice of unpaid internships.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally, it was a Conservative Government, eight years ago in 2017, who brought in the regulations on the gender pay gap under the famously Trumpian right-winger, the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead. Our proud record includes creating, for instance, the national living wage in 2015 and other progressive policies for working people. We all have done well for working people over the years, and the Labour Party does not, in any sense, have any kind of monopoly on that.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

I hardly know where to start.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Give it a go.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

Certainly, I believe that everybody at work—whatever background they come from and whatever their class, sex, gender or sexuality—should have the right to be treated fairly. I believe that our legal system, our Equality Act, precisely provides that protection for people, but that we can build on it through equality action plans and so on. But I have to say that maybe some noble Lords opposite also need to consider people’s real experience.

I was elected as the first ever woman general secretary of the TUC. Clearly, we were not a movement that rushed things, because it took an awful long time to get to that point. I have enough self-awareness to know that it was not because there were not talented women, black or white, who could have been elected and who had the talent, skills and ability. There was something else going on, and I hope that there would be enough honesty in this House to recognise that black people and women face real barriers that will not be overcome unless we take positive action.

The other point I would just like to reflect on is that, whenever I spoke about seeing more women playing active roles in not just the trade union movement but in public life, including, by the way, lending my support to women who were arguing that we needed more women in the boardroom—I supported that principle—I was always fascinated that, whenever I raised those issues, people, largely men I have to say, would start talking about merit. Well, I have to say, when I look at the upper echelons, I do not always see in those male-dominated and white-dominated ranks people who got there on the basis of merit. I have never seen an advert for a position on a board. I have never known any board member to go through an open recruitment process to get that position. It has very often been a case of a tap on the shoulder.

If we look at how many judges and newspaper editors we have, and specifically at race, sex and gender, yes, the picture has progressed, but we still have a very long way to go. Therefore, I think this amendment is a little disingenuous in trying to suggest that people who have been held back for years because of their class background, race or gender, if given a helping hand and a bit of encouragement to go for it, will somehow cause a meltdown of society.

Achieving what my noble friend said is, quite rightly, part of my history and our history. I hope that it is part of our progress as a country that we value equality. We know that ultimately it is good for all of us, and long may we keep struggling to achieve that goal.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friends on this side of the House have commented on this amendment in far better terms than I could, but I will make a supplementary point. I was very surprised to see this amendment, because one of the perennial themes that we have heard throughout all stages of the Bill in this House has been a complaint about the alleged level of extra bureaucracy that it is supposed to impose on employers. Yet here we see a veritable feast of form-filling and requirements to report on those forms at regular intervals. I suggest that this amendment is not needed; it is surplus to requirements because it places unnecessary burdens on employers.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on his maiden speech. I thought he was not going to be in his place, so, in his absence, I was going to risk his reputation by saying that when he was Transport Minister, I think the unions always had a good-faith relationship with him.

I welcome the repeal of the scheme that saw £700 million of taxpayers’ money squandered on sending four volunteers back to Rwanda. We should also commend the Government’s determination to crack down on organised crime which trades in human desperation. Those gangsters are not the only ones who have raked it in. The likes of Serco have also profited hugely from past failures to process asylum claims quickly and effectively, so I am pleased to see this Government tackling the backlog, which not only racked up hotel bills but left traumatised refugees in limbo, barred from work and unable to contribute to society. Labour’s approach must be clear: we punish the villains, not the victims. We need a system that is not only firm but fair and humane too.

This Bill focuses primarily on people who come across the channel in small boats. However, as we have heard, that is a small part of the immigration picture. In the second half of the 20th century, Irish, Caribbean and Asian immigrants helped to build our NHS and transport system, often facing racism and discrimination for their trouble. This century, we face the challenge of an ageing population and falling birth rate; unfilled vacancies, not least in health and social care and in construction; and universities, which critically rely on international students’ fees.

We do need to tackle the root causes of people’s concerns about migration. There are radical right forces, well organised and resourced, which seek to scapegoat migrants for all of Britain’s ills. However, migrants did not slash funding for skills training, schools, hospitals and youth services. They did not sell off our utilities and abandon whole towns to rot. They did not neglect building council houses in favour of luxury flats or jack up private rents. The blame lies elsewhere and the remedy, including urgent investment in our public infrastructure, is clear.

Alongside this Bill, the Government need a clear strategy to ensure that we are welcoming to newcomers and that we are good neighbours to each other. Let us remember that, before funding was cut, free classes in English for speakers of other languages helped to build community cohesion and friendships.

I want to raise three specific issues. The first is modern slavery. The Bill repeals many of the most harmful provisions contained in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 but retains provisions—notably Section 29—which would disqualify modern slavery victims from support, safety and protection because of detention or convictions which had resulted from their exploitation. This could put the UK in conflict with its duties under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and put vulnerable people at risk of re-trafficking. As well as repealing those provisions, will the Minister consider granting modern slavery victims who are in the national referral scheme the dignity of a right to work?

Secondly, the Bill makes no mention of safe routes for asylum seekers, yet people risk only their lives taking dangerous journeys to reach sanctuary and loved ones, when safe routes are not available. Also, the current family reunion rules are complex and, for many unaccompanied children, almost impossible to access. To break the people smugglers’ business model, will the Minister consider, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Bryan, building on the success of the humanitarian scheme for Ukraine to create more safe routes?

Thirdly, regarding workers, those who genuinely care about stopping those employers who abuse migrant labour to drive down wages should back the Employment Rights Bill. It must include more fair pay agreements, so that everyone, wherever they were born, gets a fair rate for the job. In the wake of extreme exploitation scandals, including in social care, domestic service, food production and the fishing industry, can the Minister ensure that there is a proper risk assessment of employer exploitation before sponsorship licences are issued? Can he also ensure that, as in Australia, workers on visas have the right to report bad employers without fearing the risk of destitution or deportation as a result?

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 127 from my noble friend Lady Penn. I declare an interest—which I am increasingly discovering to be a growing financial interest—in the form of my two daughters, who are the most precious things to me.

I confess that I am glad that it is my noble friend Lady Penn who is leading the charge on this amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, leading the group. I rise with some trepidation. I am not alone in being conscious that, in speaking to this amendment, as a man I am putting myself slightly in the firing line by somehow implying that a man should have exactly the same as the woman who has just carried and given birth to the child. As has been said, this is not about more rights for the man. It is more than that. It is about ensuring a dad can be at home to play their part for the child and, crucially, be there for the mum.

I am lucky and immensely grateful that, on both occasions when my wife gave birth to our children, I had two supportive bosses, one of whom I am delighted to say is still my boss, in the form of the Opposition Chief Whip. When the time came, my noble friend worked to give me the support and time I wanted to be with my family. When I was in the Government Whips’ Office, I worked with colleagues—two of whom I am pleased to see here, in the form of the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Harlech—to ensure that we all got the time at home that we wanted, especially me. This is not unique, but I was lucky: lucky that it was offered, lucky that it was an open dialogue, lucky that I could ask for what I would like without recourse and was completely understood, and lucky that the support extended beyond the time I was at home. I was also lucky that my child was healthy and lucky that I had my in-laws around to help out.

Like so many in the country, I wanted to be at home to help, but also to share those early moments—the precious moments in a young child’s life that were mentioned earlier. I was there to help, tidy, ferry, feed, give cover and support my wife, who was recovering after surgery. To explain my personal circumstances, both of my children’s births were not simple. The first required emergency surgery, and then a return to hospital for another stay a week after coming home. Our second child’s birth was also complicated. Despite being a planned caesarean, the surgery did not go well and it required weeks of hospital visits. There is no way at all that my wife, on her return, could have looked after a newborn child, never mind our eldest or, indeed, herself.

I say this not for sympathy, or to suggest that I am special or unique, or deserve better support than others. General statistics show that, on average, a labour can last up to 18 hours. While around 46% of women who give birth in England spend one day in postnatal care, around 40% of women spend two days or more. Caesareans have increased over the last decade, amounting to over 40% of births. It is worth reflecting that the advice on caesareans is that for weeks the mother should not lift anything heavier than her own baby.

Not everyone is able to have a wider family network to rally in support. While I was lucky that I had support at work, some are not so lucky. They do not have a choice and have to return to work sooner than they would like to, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said. Indeed, I read online that one dad was back at work 24 hours after their child was born.

I am a realist and I know that money does not grow on trees, and many businesses are already providing longer and better parental leave. Some may say that they have concerns about the impact on business and the economy, and I will not comment on the Bill as a whole, but it is obviously right that each and every day we should be supporting and helping businesses to grow—they pay the taxes and employ people.

Research shows that three-quarters of employers who offer extended leave see an increase in productivity and engagement, and almost 100% of fathers said flexibility is a deal breaker when looking for employment. As my noble friend Lady Penn said earlier, extended leave is good for parents, so that they can help and support one another; it is good for the child, to ensure that support is there for them, and to build bonds as part of a new unit; and it is good for forming another special bond, the one between employer and employee. I hope that all noble Lords, especially in my own party, recognise the merits of this amendment as something that is good for both business and families.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very, very briefly. It is heartening to hear support for the amendments in this group right across the House. I will speak in particular to those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Penn. I have already shared with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, that, when I was at the TUC, I very, very vividly remember having conversations with young men who were working as riders and delivery drivers, and they really, really wanted to be good dads. They had young babies and children, and what was most important to them—and I hope others will reflect this in paying attention to how we make working families’ lives better—was predictability of shifts and guaranteed hours, so they would know how much money they could earn, but they also wanted paid paternity leave.

To keep this really, really brief, I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister before she responds. First, can we accept that the starting point for a review would be to recognise that, compared with other countries, the UK is so ungenerous in its paid paternity leave? We do not need a huge review to know that; it is our starting point. If we are to move into the 21st century, we also need to recognise that new dads from all sorts of backgrounds want time to bond with their babies and be involved more equally in their care. Secondly, will this review focus specifically on paid paternity leave, working from the simple premise that, unless it is paid, there are whole swathes of new dads who simply cannot afford to take it?

I have been encouraged by the discussion around the House. I think there is a cross-party consensus that we all want to see new dads having that opportunity. We all know it will bring benefits for women—including closing the gender pay gap—and opportunities for children to have a better life, too.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Penn for her very thoughtful amendments in this group. I acknowledge the valuable contributions from all noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for introducing her amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing his amendments and, perhaps more importantly, reminding the House of the Conservative-led coalition Government’s work in this area—although I note that he did not heap praise on the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith.

We fully recognise and support the intention behind these proposals, which is to strengthen support for families and in particular to enhance the role of paternity leave in allowing fathers to spend essential early time with their children. This is a laudable aim that clearly finds broad sympathy across the House.

However, while the objective is clear and commendable, we must also consider the practical implications of how such policies are implemented, particularly in relation to the impact on businesses. Many employers, large and small, continue to face significant challenges in the current economic climate, as we have discussed at length this evening. The introduction of new requirements, even when limited to large employers, must be approached with caution and care, and I acknowledge that my noble friend Lady Penn addressed many of those concerns directly in her speech.

As for the reporting obligations set out in Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend, these would apply to businesses with 250 employees or more. While this threshold helps to focus the requirement on larger organisations, we should still be mindful of the potential administrative and financial burdens such reporting could entail. Even within that category, resources vary significantly, and not all may be equally equipped to take on new reporting functions—a point that was addressed by my noble friends Lord Bailey and Lord Ashcombe. That said, transparency and data collection can play a valuable role in shaping effective policy. If it can be clearly demonstrated that these measures would bring mutual benefits, improving employee well-being and retention, for example, without imposing disproportionate costs or complexity on employers, it is certainly something that we should be prepared to consider further.

Ultimately, we have to strike the right balance, ensuring meaningful support for families while safeguarding the viability and flexibility of the businesses that employ them. That is the lens through which we should view not just this amendment but the broader provisions of the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Nobody gave trade unions the power and influence they have. The power and influence were not enshrined in some three amendments in a Bill being passed through this House. They were based on the efforts of individual workers working together to achieve better conditions of work. The idea that you could substitute other bodies out of the blue when this is based, as I say, on 150 years of struggle is a delusion and a misunderstanding of how we have got here.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Davies because I absolutely agree with what he says. I would add, just from my own experience, that, early in my working life, I worked in a retail organisation where there was a staff forum and where I and colleagues were organising to establish a trade union. The difference is this: that staff forum was set up by the employer. It was not set up by workers. That staff forum was funded by the employer; it was not funded by workers. That staff forum was not democratic, whereas the whole point of a trade union is that it is a democratic organisation of working people. I would hope that one of the aims we could share across this House is to see an increase—an expansion—of genuine collective bargaining, because the evidence is very clear that, internationally, we see that the demise of collective bargaining has been associated with growing inequality, worse conditions at work, a poorer share of the wealth that workers help produce and no independent democratic voice.

I would hope that, in this country, we recognise that there are many, many working people who feel they have been denied a genuine voice—an independent voice—at work and in society, and they are rightly fed up about it. If we want to tackle that—if we want to tackle inequality and the sense of powerlessness that many people feel—it is collective bargaining through the route of independent, democratic trade unionism that we all need to see grow.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this group and I am torn between both sides. I have some cynicism about the Opposition’s attempt at recognising non-trade unions and staff associations. I entirely understand the point that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, has just made about employer-led staff clubs, which I have been, over the years, invited to join. While they have been very pleasurably good social forums, they are very different from trade unions.

However, I am afraid that there is a danger that we can romanticise what contemporary trade unionism is, based on the very fine history of 150 years of struggle. I do not actually think that trade unions at the moment should take for granted that workers will be loyal to them, because there have been far too many instances of trade unions not being fit for purpose. Indeed, there is often a huge gap between trade union leaders and trade union members. Many members are leaving unions or not joining them, and that is not always because of evil bosses in a kind of caricatured way.

At Second Reading, I made the point—and I am only repeating it here now—that, for example, the Darlington Nursing Union has been set up because the nursing unions have abandoned female members of staff who were nurses and who have been attacked by their HR departments and their employers for their political views in relation to gender and sex. As it happens, we now can appreciate that they were simply reiterating their right to privacy as biological women—something that the Supreme Court has now at least acknowledged is the law—but they have been harassed and bullied and so on, and the trade unions abandoned them.

I made a point about the Free Speech Union. I appreciate that it is not a trade union, and nobody, least of all me, is suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Young, who is in his place, will become the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, of future negotiations. Despite the fact that that is an unlikely role for the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Free Speech Union has been forced into existence and has represented workers who have been done over by their employers when their trade unions have abandoned them. That is the point I am making.

The UCU is one example of a university union. I was a NATFHE rep for many years in the further education sector and I have watched in horror the way that that union has degenerated and sold out its members. So, for the record, I would prefer that we did not caricature each other in a way that does not represent the contemporary time. The trade unions today are not the trade unions of old. They could do with upping their game. Similarly, I do not think the trade unions are the evil enemy of employers, as is sometimes implied by people sitting closer to me on this side of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 64 in my name. This amendment makes a simple change to the right to request flexible working. In 2023, the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act amended the right to request flexible working so that it applied from the first day of employment. Previously, employees needed to wait for 26 weeks as a qualifying period before making a request. That was a good move forwards, but in practice, this still means that when finding and taking a new job, an employee might need to leave a role that offers them the flexibility they need without knowing whether their new employer can accommodate their responsibilities outside work. If that request is then denied, the employee may find themselves in an impossible situation, forced to choose between their work and their responsibilities outside work. Employers might also find themselves having gone through a whole recruitment process, having waited for their new recruit to work a notice period for their previous employer, only to find that they cannot accommodate their new employee’s request and potentially having to start the recruitment process again. To me, that is a lose-lose situation, leaving both the employee and the employer worse off.

TUC research shows that two in five mothers do not feel comfortable asking for the flexible working they need during a job interview, for fear that they will face discrimination or have their offer withdrawn. Changing the law to allow flexible working requests from the job offer stage would give candidates vital protection. As I have said, the change would also benefit employers. It would create a legal framework for an open, honest conversation about working patterns before contracts are signed, ensuring that both parties can agree on arrangements that genuinely work for them. It does not change employers’ need to consider a flexible working request, nor their right, having given it proper consideration, to say that it does not fit with their business needs. Such a change would and could support fairer hiring, greater inclusion and better long-term retention.

Flexible working can unlock economic opportunities for growth. Indeed, the post-implementation review of the Flexible Working Regulations 2014, which extended the right to request flexible working to all employees, not just those with caring responsibilities, showed that flexible working can reduce vacancy costs, increase skills retention, enhance business performance and reduce staff absenteeism rates. It has the potential to bring people back into economic activity who would otherwise have left the labour market.

The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, spoke about the importance of bringing older people back into work, along with people with disabilities and those who have been on benefits for a period of time. These are people whom the Government are spending a lot of time and effort trying to re-engage into the workforce for their own good and for the good of economic growth. This change could help do that.

On these Benches, we have emphasised the benefits of having a flexible labour market, and, in my view, that means one where people are able to move easily between employers. I think this amendment would support that, so I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks of this proposal. I beg to move.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I shall speak to Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, who is unable to be in his place today due to a long-standing family commitment.

Clause 9, on flexible working, will make a huge difference to working people, including those with caring responsibilities. Many of us know all too well and very personally the daily juggling-act miracle that working mums especially are expected to perform. Anything that makes their lives easier has to be welcome. Flexible working has the added benefit to business and for the wider economy of making it easier for carers to both enter the workforce and stay there. This will help close the gender pay gap, reduce child poverty and help keep mothers and babies healthier.

Amendment 66 seeks to address the concern that, to be effective, those new rights must have teeth. I know that my noble friend Lord Watson would want to acknowledge the support of Maternity Action and the National Education Union in preparing this amendment. Amendment 66 would require the Business and Trade Secretary to review and publish a statement on the adequacy of the maximum compensation which an employment tribunal can award where an employer has not followed its obligations in dealing with an employee’s flexible-working request.

Currently, employees have the right to request flexible working, but employers can refuse on a wide range of listed grounds. Clause 9 boosts employees’ rights by introducing a reasonableness requirement, meaning that employers will be permitted to refuse a statutory flexible-working request only if it is reasonable to do so on one or more of the listed grounds. This new requirement is a positive step towards making flexible working the default. The problem is about the maximum compensation which an employment tribunal can award when it upholds an employee’s complaint about how an employer has treated their flexible-working application.

Currently, the maximum compensation that an employment tribunal can award is eight weeks’ pay, capped at £719 per week, which is a total of £5,752. This low compensation cap does not reflect the devastating cost to a worker where that flexible working has been unreasonably refused. Maternity Action and trade unions have documented how unreasonable refusals effectively force employees—particularly many new mothers and other carers—out of their job, often into lower-paid and less secure work or out of work altogether.

Flexibility should be a two-way street for the employer and worker, but in the real world too often it is mothers who are paying a high price. Set against the expense of legal representation, the low level of compensation available deters mothers from pursuing a flexible-working complaint through an employment tribunal. Their only meaningful recourse may be an indirect sex-discrimination claim against their former employer for which compensation is not capped. However, such claims are often long, complicated and extremely stressful. It is much better to send a signal that the Government are serious about enforcing flexible working rights so that employers are encouraged to do the right thing in the first place.

In the Bill’s impact assessment, it is stated that an aim of the changes in Clause 9 is to allow an employment tribunal to scrutinise whether the decision to reject a flexible working request was reasonable. For that to be effective, penalties should be introduced that reflect a substantive failure to act in accordance with a new reasonableness requirement. The Government’s aim of making flexible working the default is very welcome, but I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider bringing forward an amendment on Report or provide reassurance that other routes will be taken to ensure that the new right to flexible working is one that will be enforced in practice and that workers who are unreasonably refused such arrangements get adequate compensation.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Penn. I declare an interest that I work for Marsh, a very large insurance broker in this country and around the world. I run a team of between 30 and 40 people. Within that team, I have all sorts, sizes and cultures—you name it. Of that team, all the married women—I should say, the women with children—have some sort of flexible way that they work with us. I can tell noble Lords from my own experience that unhappy staff do not do good work; it is 101. Happy staff are very likely to do very good work. One of my main jobs is to keep my team happy, and I am given immense flexibility to do it. Without this amendment, it is less easy. I rest my case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am afraid the noble Lord will not; he will hear from me. I thank my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie in absentia for tabling Amendment 66 and my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway for so ably speaking to it. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for tabling Amendment 64. This has been a broadly helpful debate, if somewhat spicier than expected, on flexible working.

This group and the next deal with flexible working. I agree with many of the comments that noble Lords across the Committee made in highlighting how important flexible working is in helping people to balance work with responsibilities in their personal lives, particularly caring responsibilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, pointed out, flexibility can lead to happier, healthier and more productive employees. He is absolutely right on this point. It is good for employees, good for businesses and, in turn, good for the economy.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, outlined in some detail, along with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, a primary benefit of flexible working for families is that being able to work part-time, or having flexible start and finish times, can make it easier for parents to balance work and childcare needs. Similarly, for those caring for a vulnerable adult or a child with a disability, flexible working can help people to manage their caring responsibilities while remaining in work.

I echo some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about how we regard flexible working. To be clear, flexible working is not solely about working from home—something on which, post pandemic, we have become somewhat focused. Indeed, the ACAS guidance sets out eight examples of flexible working, and working from home is only one of those eight. It talks about compressed hours, staggered hours, remote working, job sharing and part-time hours as well as working from home.

According to the 2023 flexible jobs index, although nine in 10 want to work flexibly, only six in 10 employees are currently working flexibly and only three in 10 jobs are advertised with flexible working. Equally, the Government recognise that business needs vary and that not all flexible working arrangements are possible in all circumstances. That is why the Government are increasing access to flexible working by making it the default, except where not reasonably feasible. I concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox: this is not a soft policy but an important economic and human management tool, and we should regard it as such.

Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson would require the Secretary of State to review and publish a statement on the adequacy of the maximum compensation that an employment tribunal may award to an employee with a successful claim related to flexible working. The maximum compensation award is currently set at eight weeks’ pay for an employee bringing a claim to a tribunal.

Section 80I of the Employment Rights Act 1996 already means that the Government may review the maximum number of weeks’ pay that can be awarded to an employee. If they consider it appropriate to do so, they can then use this power to change the specified number of weeks’ pay by which the maximum amount of an award of compensation is set. It is therefore not necessary to include anything further in the Bill. It is worth pointing out to noble Lords that the maximum has risen every year since its introduction, from £250 in 2002 to £719 now—so this is not something that is caught in aspic. Therefore, we would argue that a statutory review on the maximum compensation award within six months of Royal Assent could create uncertainty across the board and detract from some of the other important reforms that employees, employers, trade unions and the wider economic and business community will need to prepare for.

Before leaving this, it might be helpful to speak to the wider points from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on tribunals. I cannot speak in any great detail on this issue, but I understand that the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a review of the employment tribunal system. I would hazard that it has not been sufficiently invested in in recent years, and the slowness of that system is certainly something that we should seek to address.

Before leaving Amendment 66, it is worth pointing out that there is a risk in creating uncertainty for both businesses and workers alike by creating the possibility of differing awards for different types of claims. As things stand, a number of types of claims—for example, relating to redundancy and unfair dismissal—face the same maximum award as those relating to flexible working. It might be undesirable to create confusion and undue complexity through in effect having a two-tier system.

I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, Amendment 64, which would extend the right to request flexible working to candidates with a job offer. In practice, the Government believe that this is already the case. The right to request flexible working, which is being strengthened in this Bill, is already a day one right. This means that employees can request flexible working from their first day in a role. We know that, in practice, many employers and employees will begin discussions about working arrangements before the candidate starts work.

As the noble Baroness said, before joining an organisation, informal and constructive discussions can offer a more effective way in which to identify working arrangements that work for employees and employers than a one-off formalised request and response might otherwise achieve. Mandating through legislation a right to request flexible working prior to appointment would not account for the fact that not all job offers come to fruition, for a number of reasons. However, candidates with a job offer have some limited rights. Discrimination and contractual rights are among those. The hypothetical example that the noble Baroness cited in her contribution would indeed be taken care of; discrimination based on protected characteristics is currently outlawed during the recruitment process. However, we would contend that it is not a status that we would want to overformalise at this point.

Additionally, under this proposal, employers would still have up to two months to consider and respond to a request. If the intention of this amendment is to significantly bring forward in time people’s ability to have a flexible working request accepted, it would not succeed in this respect. While the Government encourage employers to start conversations about flexible working with new starters at an early stage, it would not be appropriate to extend the legal framework for flexible working to all candidates under offer.

Lastly, to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on sex discrimination, I contend that this form of discrimination would actually carry a higher risk of penalty and payout than unreasonable refusal of flexible working, so it is probably a little out of place in the debate on this amendment.

To close, I therefore seek that noble Lords do not press their amendments in this group.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that the maximum cap applies to a number of areas, and many people believe that it is too low on those areas as well. Is he at least able to write to me or to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and explain when the next review of the cap will take place, and the opportunities there will be for organisations such as Maternity Action and trade unions to make their case that the maximum cap should be higher?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for that; I would of course be very happy to write to her and my noble friend Lord Watson on this. The point that we are making is that there is already a mechanism in place to upgrade. That does not mean that it is not something that organisations concerned about the limit of compensation can lobby on, but the amendment as tabled is superfluous; it would not add any powers that are not already in law or in the Bill already.

--- Later in debate ---

I believe these are not small matters. The Government’s decision currently risks undermining the integrity of the statutory sick pay system and could have serious consequences for businesses, workers and the economy. I hope the Minister will reconsider but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, it would be very helpful if he could confirm and clarify that, in expressing a concern that removing the waiting days would lead to more and sporadic absenteeism, it is not being implied that workers are swinging the lead. If it was being implied, where is the evidence?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Of course it is not being implied. It is outrageous that the noble Baroness should think so and voice so in this debate, which has seen a very calm and careful consideration by the Minister, who sets a good example for us all. I hope the noble Baroness will follow it. I beg leave to withdraw.

Anti-social Behaviour and Shoplifting

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord; he makes three valuable points which we will certainly take on board. My right honourable friend Diana Johnson, the Policing Minister in the House of Commons, has recently chaired a round table which I attended with the chief constable of north Wales, who is the lead on shop theft, to look at how we can co-ordinate police forces better across county lines, how we can follow up on the points the noble Lord mentioned in terms of onward use of criminal activity such as alcohol and/or drugs, and how we can, through Operation Pegasus, resource and examine those serious shop thefts that are involving not just shoplifters on an individual basis, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and others, but those criminal gangs that are organising very strong shoplifting hits. Operation Pegasus has just received additional resources from this Government to support its work.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that across this House we would agree that no shop worker should go to work afraid for their safety. But is the Minister aware of Home Office research showing that the majority of shoplifting offences are carried out by hard-drug users? Can the Minister tell us what steps government can take to reduce the stigma and shame around addiction so that more users seek help?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. One of the key things the last Government did—as in the last Labour Government, from 2005 to 2010—was ensure we had a number of community-based sentences and community orders to support people who had drug or alcohol addictions to overcome those addictions and therefore stop shoplifting because of those addictions. I certainly hope the sentencing review will consider that in the round. When the measures we have brought forward come to this House and to the House of Commons in due course, I hope that issue of how we tackle persistent offenders and intervene on their behaviour will be central to our purpose in passing legislation downstream.

Care Worker Visa Regime

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point about activities that have taken place in some other countries. Our abilities to influence those are somewhat constrained. I do not know how the Care Quality Commission goes about licensing. I will find out and report back to her on that. I repeat my previous answer: we will of course go after all those who are engaged in fraudulent practices.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree, on reflection, that preventive measures should have been put in place? Many unions and organisations are now arguing that no business should be able to sponsor care workers unless it has been in operation for at least two years and unless it has had an inspection first, rather than after the event. Also, how are we going to go after abuses in the labour market when there are so few inspectors? For example, 18 inspectors are supposed to deal with an agency sector covering 40,000 businesses.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I cannot comment on the number of inspectors because I genuinely do not know the answer to how many there are, but I take the noble Baroness’s points. I reiterate that we will go after people who are abusing the visas and the individuals. We should remember that the employers also need to be supported to recruit staff from abroad in a way that meets the needs of those people. Skills for Care makes that point, and I completely agree.

Certificate of Sponsorship: Foreign Health and Care Workers

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Yes, I reassure the noble Lord that the Home Office works very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on ensuring the safety and security of those who come to work here on visas and of those for whom they care.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a key problem with the health and care worker visa scheme is that it forces workers into dependency on an individual employer? If a worker leaves that job, they need to find another sponsoring employer within 60 days or face deportation. The terrible truth is that many vulnerable care workers are more frightened of the Home Office than they are of an exploitative boss. Does the Minister agree that the Government should introduce a sector-wide fair pay agreement, strengthen workers’ rights and work with trade unions so that workers have the confidence to exercise their rights?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that migrant workers are able to seek alternative employment in the event that their initial placement is unsatisfactory for the reasons that she outlines, provided that they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor—which of course stands to reason. They can make a new application for a further visa in those circumstances.