Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Wilcox of Newport Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. It is very important that we do not suggest that giving a helping hand to those who have been politically deprived of equality equals equality. It can also equal tokenism. Working-class people, women and people from ethnic minorities have been promoted to positions in authority, and people basically point them out and say, “Look at them: they succeeded”. That is the opposite of equal treatment, and condescension is not a good look.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I can hardly follow my noble friend Lady O’Grady in being the TUC’s first woman general secretary, but I was the first woman leader of Newport City Council after decades and the first woman leader of the Welsh Local Government Association—and am still the only one.

I was also a public service employee for 35 years, when I taught in schools in London and south Wales, so I know about positive action. When I became a public service employer, as the leader of Newport, what I tried to do with positive action was to actively take a range of measures and initiatives to encourage people from communities that were underrepresented. We wanted them to bring their talents, experiences and expertise to our organisation, and we wanted them to join us.

Our selection process was no different: through the use of positive action, we did not seek to remove competition; rather, we wanted to allow everyone the same level of opportunity. That final selection for a post was always made on the merit of the applicant. We built our workforce so that it reflected the rich diversity and complexities of our community of Newport and we attracted the best talent from the widest pool of people.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on positive action, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for initiating it. It raised important issues but, when the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, spoke of straw-man debates, I thought he was a good example in the issues that he raised, because we are not talking about positive discrimination here. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, acknowledged, all Governments have supported positive action, for very good reasons.

The positive action provisions in the Equality Act 2010 enable, in a work context, both public and private sector employers to prioritise the recruitment of and promote people who have protected characteristics that are underrepresented generally or at certain levels in their workplace.

This is permissible only where the available candidates are considered equally qualified for the particular role. In other words, it is a tie-break based on workforce diversity. We therefore do not accept the premise of the new clause that another employee has suffered an unjustified detriment by not being selected. Of course, we are absolutely clear that it is illegal to positively discriminate, and I will give reasons.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raised something that I read in the Daily Telegraph about West Yorkshire Police. One of the things that, sadly, many of our newspapers fail to do is to issue the full statement. I thought West Yorkshire Police issued a commendable statement. It said:

“In West Yorkshire Police, we are committed to improving equality, diversity, and inclusion within the organisation, and strive to be more representative of the communities we serve.


Our Diversity, Equality and Inclusion team supports and consults with those with different protected characteristics such as sex, disability, sexual orientation, and race to ensure their views can influence and improve the service the force delivers. They also work to improve the wellbeing of everybody in the organisation and inclusivity overall.


The most recent census found that 23 per cent of people in West Yorkshire identified as being from an ethnic minority background. Our current police officer representation from ethnic minority backgrounds is around nine per cent. To address this under-representation, we use Positive Action under the Equality Act 2010. Our use of this was recently reviewed by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services in an Activism and Impartiality inspection and no issues were identified.


Positive Action allows people from under-represented groups who express an interest in joining the force to complete an application, which is then held on file until a recruitment window is opened. No interviews are held until the window is officially opened to all candidates. Enabling people from under-represented groups to apply early does not give them an advantage in the application process, it simply provides us with more opportunity to attract talent from this pool of applicants”.


I think that is the point that my noble friend Lady O’Grady was making. It is a pity that the Daily Telegraph did not report the full statement from the police because I think it sets this whole thing in perfect context.

A detriment arises where someone is treated unfairly by their employer—for example, where someone is promoted over them who is clearly a weaker candidate. If the reason for that was based on a protected characteristic, it would be unlawful positive discrimination under the 2010 Act and would be rightly challengeable, but this is not the situation under positive action. I think that has been extremely well illustrated by West Yorkshire Police in terms of how it adopted that policy.

We also have doubts as to whether the processes envisaged could be truly confidential. This could have undesirable implications for both the successful candidate and the complainant. Lawful recruitment decisions are confidential for good reason, and opening them up to this kind of probing risks creating interemployee bad feeling, particularly in smaller departments where the identification of people by inference or guesswork is easier.

The Bill is about improving employment rights, not creating new and unnecessary conflicts. Positive action can work effectively only as part of a confidential recruitment process, where transparency is often good for equality. What is proposed would, I fear, work against that, and as such the Government cannot support the proposed new clause.

Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025

Baroness Wilcox of Newport Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, forensic science is an integral part of delivery of the criminal justice system in the 21st century. I am a devoted fan of television programmes on real crime in the evenings, and I can honestly say that I have not yet seen one where DNA, drug analysis, mobile phones, photos, messages, health apps or emails have not brought the criminals to justice. Bringing people to justice is absolutely central to what we do. I put on record my thanks to the police and forensic scientists in this country for all they do in delivering these crucial services.

The Government’s mission is to halve violent crime, halve violence against women and girls, and increase confidence in the police and criminal justice system. We are also consulting on a new national centre of policing to bring together crucial support services, including forensics, that local police forces can draw upon to raise standards and improve efficiency.

None of this can be done without access to high-quality and cost-effective forensic science. The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 was a significant milestone for forensic science in England and Wales. It established the Forensic Science Regulator as a statutory officeholder, giving it power to take action when it has reason to believe that forensic science activities are being conducted in such a way as to create a substantial risk to the course of justice. More pertinent to this Committee’s work today, the Act requires the regulator to produce a statutory code of practice. This code will formally define which forensic science activities will be regulated and set out the standards that forensic practitioners must meet.

The very first version of that code came into force under the previous Government in October 2023 following parliamentary approval. It was the first such statutory code anywhere in the world. We recognised that, due to the novelty of those statutory requirements, the regulator would have to examine a second version of the code in due course.

We have undertaken a consultation on version 2 of the code, which was launched in early 2024. This resulted in 1,230 comments from 96 respondents from a range of organisations and sectors, including law enforcement, academia and commercial providers. Policing and wider law enforcement constituted 64 of the 96 respondents. The regulator also held extensive discussions with specialist groups from across the forensics community. The result is that version 2 of the code is laid before us today.

Most of the changes are minor or technical and clarify existing provisions. Some practical issues that arose only when the first version of the code was implemented have now been addressed and rectified. The most significant change in version 2 of the code relates to the regulation of incident scene examination. For some time, concerns had been raised with the regulator by policing concerning the effectiveness of the incident scene examination requirements set out in version 1 of the code. Version 2 streamlines that process and will now require a corporate approach by each police organisation, and eliminates the need for individual assessments across 149 different sites. The regulator believes that this will save significant police staffing hours and should therefore be welcomed.

The new requirements set out in version 2 of the code have widespread support among forensic practitioners, forensic leaders and chief police officers, and should lead to significant savings for the police. Overall, version 2 of the code has been designed to continue to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system and to help guard against miscarriages of justice.

Finally, I put on record my thanks to Gary Pugh, the Forensic Science Regulator, who will be retiring towards the end of this year. During his term he has overseen the transition of the role to that of a statutory officeholder and produced the code of practice before us today. I commend this instrument to the Committee.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is of note that the Minister, both opposition spokespeople and the chair are all Welsh, as we talk about forensic science. I wonder how often that happens.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, it seems as though the Taffia are taking over.

I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in the chair of this Committee. This is the first time I have seen her in her new role, and I congratulate her and wish her well. I know she will bring the same high level of professionalism to this role that she does to every other role she holds.

I welcome very briefly these updated provisions, which offer much-needed clarity and a more streamlined approach to compliance in incident scene examination. A consistent corporate framework is a sensible step forward in reinforcing accountability across the sector. In a field that plays such a critical role in the justice system, clear standards and effective oversight are essential. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further details on two points.

First, how many small and micro businesses are currently involved in commercial forensic work? Have they all been made aware of the need to comply with the updated code? How will their compliance be monitored to ensure that standards are met across the board? Secondly, the code mentions that it will be reviewed at regular intervals. Can the Minister clarify what that means in practical terms? Certainty around the timing and process of review would help build confidence in the regulatory framework. It is essential that we ensure that all providers, large and small, are held to the same high standards to maintain the integrity of forensic evidence and the public’s trust in our justice system. This statutory instrument has the support of these Benches.

Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025

Baroness Wilcox of Newport Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Committee stands adjourned for a couple of minutes until we find the Opposition spokesperson.