Fair Work Agency: Small and Micro Businesses

Earl of Erroll Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to set out the Government’s position. As I say, we recognise the pressures on small firms. That is precisely why the Fair Work Agency consolidates the current four enforcement agencies into one, thus setting up a simpler and clearer regime. It reduces duplication, clarifies and enforces, and it provides a single point of contact for guidance and support. We aim to simplify rather than add more layers of regulation, while ensuring that responsible employers —and I mean responsible—are protected from being undercut by those who abuse and ignore the law.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, should we not remember Reagan’s great stricture that

“the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help”?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Well, I am from the Government, and I am here to help. I am here to help those businesses that do well and behave themselves; for them, nothing will happen. If employers abuse the system, the Government will step in and take action.

As this is my last time at the Dispatch Box for 2025, I take this opportunity to wish everyone a merry and peaceful Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Earl of Erroll Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

I am sorry that my noble friend used some of the words that he did in defence of his amendment, because I think his amendment—properly amended, so that we do not get ourselves into the concerns raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—should be supported by people who could not accept some of the things that he said. What he and the Front Bench have put forward is something that the Government really have to answer, because the public feel strongly about this—as do I. I do not understand why somebody who is not a citizen and who commits a crime should not be deported. I understand that some of those circumstances will be difficult because of the country from which they have originally come and that we need to amend this amendment properly to meet what we really want. But will the Minister accept that, unless we face up to this issue, we will constantly be giving to people, whom we do not want to stir up trouble, the most wonderful opportunity to do so? That is why these amendments have to be taken seriously.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to something that has always puzzled me. Article 8 has two paragraphs. The first is about

“the right to … private and family life”.

The second states that you can ignore that if it is

“in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

I do not see the problem with inserting something such as that into the Bill, whereby we can remove people if they breach that. That is part of Article 8, which is not at all about an unqualified right to a family life.

On the point about “careless driving”, that term is used if you have made a bit of a mistake, whereas “dangerous driving” really is a dangerous offence. I can see how that would qualify, but I am not so sure about careless driving—it depends on the circumstances.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate, and I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson. This is the type of debate that we need to have in this Chamber. These are wide moral issues that go to the heart of what we do with our justice system.

Something that has been forgotten in the debate is that the purpose of some measures—which have been described by some as extreme and, somehow, a little too far reaching—is to have a deterrent effect. We sometimes forget that that is the purpose of some law. It is not about having something in place so that, after an event has happened, we can do something that is proportionate to the person who did it; it should be about the knowledge of the wider public, whether that is our standing population or those who are living among us and seeking refugee status, that there are normalities and reasonable behaviours expected of us all. If we have what some describe as extreme measures on our statute book, they could perhaps facilitate better behaviour. I do not think we should be frightened of this.

We need to have a wider debate and for the Government to open up more countries to be deemed acceptable and safe. We hear that our European neighbour countries are taking a rather different view of what is deemed a safe country, including Afghanistan, from ours in this country. I do not think that their human rights industry has quite got to the advanced state that we have in the UK. We have an opportunity here for the British public to realise that these Houses of Parliament are listening to them and their concerns, so I welcome this wider debate. If we do not adopt these amendments today, the Government should take on board how they can move towards the position of the wider public.

Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025

Earl of Erroll Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a fairly valid challenge. The decision to apply is for the ambulance trusts. They were initially all included. Some have determined that they have not used this power, and therefore they do not wish to have it any more. One trust has maintained the power because it wishes to use it, and three have not responded, so we have kept them on just in case because we do not want to risk operational errors.

The type of purpose that they could use it for may well be, for example, that an individual who comes into contact with the ambulance trust is in the middle of a mental health episode, is disorientated, does not know who they are and is not aware of where they are, what they have done or where they have been. There could be individuals who are involved in alcohol intoxication. There is a range of reasons why there might need to be access. As it happens, the vast majority of trusts have said they do not need or want this power. If one trust has said it wants to retain the power, it is reasonable that we assess that further downstream. But the determination is that the trusts themselves decide whether they want that power. Therefore, we are making sure that there are no operational risks in that.

On removing the authorities that did not respond, I am not particularly pleased that we did not have a response from three authorities—I will put that on the record. They should respond accordingly. But there is always the danger that, if we took them off now, they may end up using their powers without realising they do not have them any more. They may find themselves in a litigious position, and I do not want to see that either.

For the moment, that is a very valid challenge and this should be kept under review, but that is the logic behind it—if that helps the noble Lord.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

In case it may help, I was involved in the original RIPA 2000 and discussions about this. I remember the whole thing about ambulances. The reason it was thought of then was vexatious 999 calls to the ambulance service. Obviously, that had happened somewhere, but, clearly, it does not happen in many areas, so they do not need this training. But, if it does happen in some areas, it is quite reasonable that it should be retained somewhere just in case, because it may need tidying up. It will probably depend on whether there are particular individuals in certain areas, and you may need to give the powers and take them away again. I seem to remember that that was one of the main reasons we gave it in the first place.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for that intervention. The decision that the Home Office has taken is that it is for organisations to apply. With the ambulance trusts, once we have determined that we will remove the general exemption—because organisations have requested removal—we are then in a position to allow them to do that. Both noble Lords have made fair challenges on the assessment and oversight of that. Ultimately, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is the determinant of that matter, and I am facilitating that process today.